Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COMPANY OF WATERMEN AND LIGHTER- MEN BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

New Stamps

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when it is proposed to issue postage stamps bearing the head of Her Majesty the Queen.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): A decision has not yet been reached. An announcement will be made as soon as definite information is available.

Sir I. Fraser: Could the hon. Gentleman say what steps are being taken about the design, and could he also say whether a Coronation stamp is contemplated?

Mr. Gammans: That, too, is under consideration.

Mr. Ede: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether it will be possible in the new issue of stamps to have some design illustrative of the industries and amenities of the country?

Mr. Gammans: That is a matter, of course, which has to be decided by Her Majesty and is not entirely a matter for the Post Office.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in the early days of postage stamps this country was pre-eminent in design and that we have

fallen sadly away from that high standard? Will Her Majesty's Government do their best to restore the position?

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the usual practice of consulting artists, who submit designs, will be followed?

Mr. Gammans: Yes. Sir.

C.O.D. Service to America

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware that the absence of a cash-on-delivery service to the United States of America is a deterrent to trade; and whether he will establish such a service.

Mr. Gammans: The Post Office has as recently as 1949 proposed this service to the United States of America, but that Administration does not in general offer a foreign cash-on-delivery service and has not been prepared to agree to its introduction.

Mr. Shepherd: As this is a great deterrent to trade with the United States, and as the United States operate an internal cash-on-delivery service, will not my hon. Friend try to introduce some pressure at a higher level to settle this issue?

Mr. Gammans: We made the suggestion to the United States as short a time ago as 1949, but they were not prepared to agree to it.

Postage Deficiencies (Surcharges)

Sir Edward Keeling: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will try the Dutch system of collecting from the senders deficiencies in the postage paid on letters sent abroad, instead of leaving them to be collected from the addressees.

Mr. Gammans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for this suggestion. It has long been the practice of the Post Office, where either a single package or a batch of packages from one sender would be liable to a heavy surcharge, for the additional stamps to be stuck on and the sender asked to refund them. It is proposed to extend this arrangement as an experiment to cover as many ordinary underpaid letters as possible, but this can only be done where the name and address of the sender appears on the outside.

Sir E. Keeling: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that the old British custom of understamping letters send abroad causes much irritation in other countries, and that his efforts to remove some of the irritation and to change the custom to a greater extent will be applauded?

Mr. Gammans: That is why we are making this experiment, but I would point out to my hon. Friend that it is bound to be limited so long as approximately only one person in five troubles to put his name and address on the envelope, because the Post Office have no authority to open letters.

Official Car Service

Mr. Norman Dodds: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the estimated monthly saving in Government expenditure involved in reducing the official cars attached to the headquarters of the Post Office from 14 to 9; whether the cars have been sold; and whether their drivers have left the Government service.

Mr. Gammans: The estimated gross monthly saving is about £350, including overheads. The five cars will either be sold or used to meet other Government requirements; the drivers concerned have been transferred to other vehicles.

Mr. Dodds: Will the hon. Gentleman explain where the saving has been made so far as Government expenditure is concerned, and if there has not been a saving does that not show that when the announcement was made in this House it was sheer hypocritical humbug?

Mr. Gammans: If the hon. Gentleman saw me using the tube he would not think it was sheer hypocritical humbug; but the fact remains that the cars used by the Post Office are fewer by that number.

Mr. Dodds: Is it not a fact that the drivers' wages are paid by the Government Department, and if cars have not been sold, where is the saving?

Mr. Gammans: The drivers concerned have been transferred to other sections of the Post Office, which means that we have not had to take on new drivers to fill vacancies.

Training Films

Mr. Gordon Walker: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General his policy in regard to the future production and use of training films.

Mr. Gammans: Subject to the paramount need for economy, my noble Friend proposes to continue to use films for training Post Office staff. Production of new films for this purpose will continue to be arranged through the Central Office of Information.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, by the decision to abolish the Crown Film Unit, the extent of this service will be reduced and whether any extra charges will fall on the Post Office?

Mr. Gammans: It will have no effect at all on the extent to which the films will be used. So far as the cost is concerned, I hope it will be cheaper for the taxpayer.

Hours of Business

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will consider adopting the same hours for the counter work in post offices in the United Kingdom as in Australia, where the hours are identical with those of commerce; and what would be the approximate saving in staff hours at the Post Office public counters if the hours of business at public counters were 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. with a convenient half holiday.

Mr. Gammans: The hours of business at most sub post offices are already closely related to those of shops. These offices are mostly open from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. frequently with an hour's break at midday, and a weekly half holiday. Crown offices generally open from 8.30 a.m. to 6.30–7 p.m. on each weekday.
I regret that the information which my hon. and gallant Friend seeks cannot be obtained without detailed investigation; but quite apart from the fact that any reduction of hours at Crown offices would, I am convinced, lead to strong public protest, I doubt if any economy would result because of the increased staff which would be necessary, when the offices were open, to deal with the resultant congestion.

Terrington Committee Report

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General (1) whether he will meet the National Guild of Telephonists to discuss the implementation of the Terrington Committee Report;
(2) what he proposes to do with the application for recognition by the National Guild of Motor Engineers in view of the recommendations of the Terrington Committee Report.

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will give an assurance that effect will not be given to the Report of the Post Office Department Classes Recognition Committee before the Report has been discussed in this House.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will now state what action he intends to take in relation to the Terrington Report on Trade Union Recognition within the Post Office.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will inform the National Association of Postal and Telegraph Officers of the findings of the Terrington Committee; and if he will implement the findings.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what steps he proposes to take with regard to the Electrical Officers Telecommunications Association, in the light of the Terrington Committee Report.

Mr. Hobson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what decision he has reached in regard to the recommendations of the Terrington Committee.

Mr. Gammans: My noble Friend is examining the Terrington Report and has asked interested associations to furnish him with any written comments which they may wish to offer. It is not proposed to take any action meanwhile.

Mr. Winterbottom: Will not the Assistant Postmaster-General agree that in the light of the Terrington Report the attitude of the last Government to splinter unions of the Post Office has been fully justified?

Mr. Gammans: I do not think that I ought to comment on the Terrington

Report until my noble Friend has had a chance to examine it thoroughly and the comments which the interested bodies propose to make upon it.

Mr. Winterbottom: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General then consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour with a view to posting employment vacancies to Mr. W. J. Brown?

Mr. Ness Edwards: May I ask the hon. Gentleman one or two questions? First, is he satisfied that this inquiry was conducted fairly and impartially; second, whether or not it is the intention of his noble Friend to convene a meeting of the recognised trade unions for the purpose of implementing or discussing the implementation of these recommendations, and, third, whether or not we can have an assurance that no recognition will be given to any splinter union until full discussions have taken place in accordance with the recommendations?

Mr. Gammans: My noble Friend is extremely gratified with the Report and very grateful to Lord Terrington and his colleagues for carrying out this investigation. Until my noble Friend has had a chance to consider it in all its implications, including the ones mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, I prefer to make no further statement.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Does not the hon. Gentleman remember that when he and his colleagues were on this side of the House they pressed this matter as one of great urgency, and as his noble Friend has had this Report for six weeks, what is the reason for the delay?

Sir H. Williams: As my hon. Friend did not answer my specific question, is he aware that no action should be taken until there has been an opportunity to discuss it in this House?

Mr. Gammans: Whether there is a debate on the matter in this House is, of course, not a matter for me.

Sir H. Williams: That is not an answer to my question.

Mr. Hobson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of these amalgamations of trade unions which are recommended in the Terrington Report would have taken place months ago had it not been for the attitude of himself and his hon. Friends oppositee?

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that many of us regard with disfavour those parts of the Terrington Report which tend to place restriction on free associations, and those of us who held that view have not changed it since we changed from that side of the House to this.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the question of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), will the Assistant Postmaster-General consult with the Leader of the House to see whether he can arrange a time to debate this subject?

Mr. Gammans: I think that hon. Members in all parts of the House had better wait until the final statement is made on this matter.

Cable Delays

Mr. W. F. Deedes: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what action he proposes to take in response to representations about the delays imposed on cables to Australia and New Zealand which have occurred this month.

Mr. Gammans: There have been delays during February, and my noble Friend is extremely disturbed about them. It is, however, a fact that they were no worse than in February of last year in spite of the hurricane damage to the cable station in Fiji and interruption to the cables passing through Egypt.
This year the Atlantic cable from Porthcurno to Harbour Grace, which has been out of action since the middle of the war, should be working again.

Mr. Deedes: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that one result of these delays was that a certain amount of traffic was diverted via the U.S.A., and is he aware of the very serious implications of that move for the future of this branch of Commonwealth telecommunications?

Mr. Gammans: That is one of the things disturbing my noble Friend.

Cable and Wireless

Mr. Hobson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will state, in detail, the reasons which have led him to doubt whether it would be profitable now to attempt any uprooting of Cable and Wireless.

Mr. Gammans: Because not enough time has elapsed since the taking over on 1st April, 1950, for a considered judgment to be reached.

Mr. Hobson: Does the hon. Gentleman think that one of the reasons might be that his party voted for the Second and Third Readings of the Telecommunications Act?

Mr. Gordon Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman consult all Commonwealth Governments concerned before he thinks of changing our policy on this matter?

Mr. Gammans: There is no question of any immediate change being made. I have answered the Question which was put to me. The hon. Member asked why the statement was made in those words.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: Can my hon. Friend say what is meant by "uprooting" wireless?

Mr. Hobson: That is only a phrase used in answer to a Question.

Mr. Deedes: As Cable and Wireless has been on a new basis for five years, does not that make it possible to review some aspects of its administration?

Mr. Gammans: My noble Friend feels that not enough time has elapsed for him to come to a considered judgment about a very important matter of this kind.

Postal Packages, Northern Ireland (Opening)

Mr. Cahir Healy: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what powers have been delegated by his Department to the Government of Northern Ireland to enable them to open postal packages in transit; and whether he will undertake to withdraw this authority.

Mr. Gammans: None, Sir.

Mr. Healy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Post Office in Belfast is used for party purposes, and does this really differ from the practice in totalitarian countries where opponents' letters are opened?

Mr. Gammans: I did not pick up what the hon. Gentleman said. Perhaps he would be good enough to put it again.

Mr. Healy: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that opponents' letters are being opened in Northern Ireland, and is that any different from the practice in certain Continental countries?

Mr. Gammans: That is not the Question which I was asked. The hon. Gentleman asked me if powers had been delegated to the Government of Northern Ireland and whether I would undertake to withdraw any authority given. My answer is that we have delegated no authority.

Mr. J. Beattie: What action does the hon. Gentleman propose to take to prevent persons not directly under his control using accommodation in Room 22 of the G.P.O. in Belfast for the censorship of letters and mail?

Mr. Gammans: That point does not in any way arise.

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary question, I gather, concerns people who are not under the control of the Post Office. If that is so, the question cannot be asked.

Mr. Beattie: This is taking place in the building which is under the control of the hon. Gentleman. Will he take action to prevent these unauthorised persons using those premises for the censorship of mails and letters?

Mr. Gammans: If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask me that question he must put it down. That does not in any way arise out of the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. E. Shinwell: If the allegation made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Beattie), is true, that postal packets and letters are being censored in accommodation under the hon. Gentleman's control in Belfast, would it not be his responsibility to deal with the matter?

Mr. Gammons: If that is the question which the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman wants answered and it is put down, I will consider it, but it does not arise from this Question.

Mr. Charles Pannell: Might I call the attention of the House to the terms of the Question? The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Healy) asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what powers had been delegated by his

Department. That is what the Question said. Cannot the Minister give a straight answer to it?

Mr. Speaker: I understood the Minister to answer that no powers had been delegated.

Mr. Beattie: If the hon. Gentleman has delegated no powers, why is he allowing the premises to be used?

Mr. Speaker: I think that is a separate question. It is clearly a separate question from the Question which has been answered, and it is ancient usage in this House when a new question is asked as a supplementary, that it is within the Minister's discretion to ask for notice of it. In asking for the question to be on the Order Paper the Assistant Postmaster-General is doing nothing that is not in accordance with the customs of the House.

Mr. Healy: Is the Minister aware that the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, in replying to a Question in the Northern Ireland House of Commons, said: "I am not prepared"—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: The difficulty about that question is that certain powers have been given by this House to the Parliament of North Ireland. I cannot tell from the form of this supplementary question whether or not it is in order for this House to discuss the matter, because it might concern the delegated powers. I think it would be in the interests of us all, and to prevent any conflict between the two Houses, that we should see the question on the Order Paper in its proper form.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: It is also said in the Northern Ireland House of Commons that no question on this issue can be answered there because the responsibility rests here. Under those circumstances, I respectfully suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is in order for the question to be asked here, or else there ought to be some consultation between the authorities concerned in order that it may be settled where the question can be asked.

Mr. Speaker: Surely it is reasonable for me to suggest that we should have notice on the Order Paper of the question so that we can see exactly what the question is.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Is it to be understood that where something in the nature of a criminal or similar offence is brought to the notice of a Minister of the Crown, he is going to take no action whatsoever until the question is put down on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: That is a proposition much wider than I have enunciated. All I am saying is that this House has delegated certain powers to the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and a question such as this ought to be on the Order Paper so that we can see whether it is in order or not.

Mr. Beattie: I should like to be accommodating. I have asked a very simple and straightforward question. I am prepared to put it down on the Order Paper at your request, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Healy: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many postal packages have been opened in the post offices in Northern Ireland for the purpose of the examination of their contents by the police officers since 1st November, 1951; and how many of these packages were opened in order to exercise a political censorship of their contents.

Mr. Gammans: I assume that the hon. Member refers to packages opened under the Royal Prerogative. I have no information as to the reason for the exercise of this power, and I am advised that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the extent to which it is exercised.

Mr. Healy: Is the Minister aware that the Northern Ireland Minister of Home Affairs has admitted that he is opening letters but he will not give any reason for opening them? Is he further aware that they have been opened in his premises and by persons apparently under his control in Room 22.

Mr. Speaker: If they are under the control of the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland it is not a matter for this House.

Mr. Healy: I mean under the control of the Assistant Postmaster-General.

Mr. Gammans: That is no concern of mine. I am merely acting under a Warrant which I mentioned in the answer to my Question.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman is now taking refuge in declaring that it might not be in the public interest to interfere. Can he give reasons why the public interest is affected by this? [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, might I ask my question? [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite should keep in order. May I repeat my question? Should the hon. Gentleman take refuge by declaring that the public interest in this matter prevents him from disclosing this information, and if so, would he advance a reason why the public interest is affected?

Mr. Gammans: It is not a question of taking refuge at all. The Post Office are only agents in this matter. It might interest the right hon. Gentleman to know that I am acting under a Warrant that was signed during the time of my predecessor.

Mr. Hobson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been an extension of this practice since November extending to the letters of a political party?

Mr. Gammans: There has been no extension at all. This Warrant was signed while the hon. Gentleman who has just asked that question was occupying my present position.

Sir William Darling: Is it not a fact that the present practices which are being referred to have been in existence for over 20 years.

Mr. Hobson: They have been extended.

Mr. James Callaghan: Can the Minister say how he satisfies himself that the letters which are opened do not go beyond the prerogatives that are accorded to him in this matter unless he knows what the contents are?

Mr. Gammans: I only act under the Royal Prerogative, and the Post Office are only agents in this matter.

Mr. Callaghan: How does the Assistant Postmaster-General know whether his servants are exceeding the Prerogative which is given to them unless he satisfies himself about the nature of the letters opened?

Mr. Gammans: I am satisfied that the Post Office servants in this matter are only acting within the terms of the Warrant and I can assure the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the


Opposition Front Bench that the Warrant under which I am acting is exactly that which was granted to my predecesor.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is trying to put his case quite fairly. Certain obligations have been assumed under this Royal Warrant, but the allegation in the Question is that police officers are occupying premises and doing something now that was never intended under the Royal Warrant which has been standing for many years.

Mr. Gammans: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Post Office are doing no more and no less than they did when he was Postmaster-General.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Could the Assistant Postmaster-General answer the first part of the Question, because presumably no question of public interest arises there, and say how many postal packets have been opened?

Mr. Gammons: I cannot answer that question, for the reasons I have given.

Mr. Gordon Walker: May I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he knows, even if he will not tell us, the number that has been opened?

Mr. Gammans: No, I do not.

Mr. Healy: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Scales (Inspection)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether the agreement entered into by his Department with the Board of Trade for the periodical inspection by inspectors of weights and measures, provides machinery for enabling summonses to be issued against the Post Office where weighing appliances are found to be false.

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir; this would require legislation, and the committee on weights and measures legislation did not recommend this action.

Mr. Shepherd: Must not this action, to be effective, include a provision to issue summonses? Why does my hon. Friend maintain that the Post Office should be free from the requirements that apply to private traders?

Mr. Gammans: That raises the general question of suing a Government Department by another Government service and the question of who pays the fine.

Savings Bank Accounts (Withdrawals)

Sir Edward Keeling: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what proof of identity is now required for the withdrawal of money from the Post Office Savings Bank.

Mr. Gammans: No special evidence of identity is now required for the withdrawal of money from the Post Office Savings Bank. Where a counter clerk notices a difference between the signature on the withdrawal form and that in the book, or has any reason to suppose that an attempt at fraud is being made, he will, as always, be entitled to ask for some proof of identity.

Sir E. Keeling: Good.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Sleaford

Mr. J. B. Godber: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the large number of people in the Sleaford area who are awaiting the supply of a telephone service at the present time; and what steps he is taking to ensure an improvement in the situation there.

Mr. Gammans: The Sleaford exchange has recently been reconstructed and extended, and additional equipment and cables will be provided as quickly as possible; but in view of the heavy demands on our limited resources, I cannot at present say when this new plant is likely to be ready for service.

Mr. Godber: I thank my hon. Friend, but may I ask him to bear in mind the large number of applications outstanding, particularly from business people and from those connected with agriculture? It is a real problem at the present time.

Mr. Gammans: I am aware of that, and I am sorry that we cannot complete it sooner.

London Telephone Directory

Mr. Sidney Marshall: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what alterations are projected in regard to the publication of the London telephone directory.

Mr. Gammans: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 20th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey).

Mr. Marshall: Can the Minister say if it is really definite that the London telephone directory as we now know it is not to be divided up into purely local directories?

Mr. Gammans: That is another question.

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: To overcome this difficulty, will my hon. Friend issue amendments to the London telephone directory where he is not going to issue a full directory?

Mr. Gammans: I do not think that is necessary because already the new directory will go to business subscribers and to new subscribers, and any private subscriber who wants a copy can get one if he asks for it.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if his revised regulations allow a residential telephone subscriber in the London area to obtain a copy of a new issue of the London telephone directory merely by asking for it; to whom application must be made; and in what manner.

Mr. Gammans: If an existing residential subscriber specially needs a new issue, one will be provided; he should apply for it to his local telephone manager, preferably in writing.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: How does my hon. Friend define "special need"? Is this a needs test of some form or other?

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir. There is no difficulty about it. If any private subscriber really wants a telephone directory we shall be only too pleased to see that he has one.

Mr. Ede: If the subscriber makes an application once, will that be only for that issue, or must he make an application for each issue of the directory?

Mr. Gammans: The subscriber must make an application for each issue of the directory.

Mr. Nicholson: My hon. Friend said he would be pleased to see that a subscriber got a directory if he wanted

one. Did he mean to say "if the subscriber asks for it"? That is really what the Question asks.

Mr. Gammans: I am sorry if I conveyed a wrong impression. If the subscriber asks for a directory, he will get one.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that for some four years his Department, against my better wishes, has been sending me four copies of every telephone directory for one telephone number? He might find a useful source of supply there.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applicants are on the waiting list for telephone installations in Newcastle-upon-Tyne; and how many have been connected during 1951.

Mr. Gammans: Eight hundred and twenty-eight are on the waiting list and 420 are being provided or are under inquiry. In 1951 there were 2,360 new connections.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the hon. Gentleman do his utmost to ensure that a fair supply of materials are made available to Newcastle and district as there is still some feeling there that they do not get their fair proportion?

Mr. Gammans: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall do our best to get more satisfactory conditions in the Newcastle area as soon as possible.

Captain Charles Waterhouse: Is my hon. Friend aware that in practically every town and city there is a shortage of telephones, and will he do his utmost to fill up the deficiencies which have arisen after six years of Socialist misrule?

Mr. Gammans: As the House knows, the limiting factor is the shortage of raw materials and also the shortage of manpower.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the hon. Gentleman catching himself coming back?

Newport

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when the present telephone system at Newport was installed.

Mr. Gammans: The exchange was opened in 1915.

Mr. Freeman: Was not this the first experimental dialling system station opened in this country, and has it not had all the inherent disadvantages of an experimental scheme ever since?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Did the hon. Member for Newport put his Question to the previous Government? If so, what answer did he get?

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the inadequacy of the present telephone exchange at Newport to meet the growing needs of Monmouthshire and surrounding areas; and what action he proposes to take to modernise the existing installation.

Mr. Gammans: As the hon. Member is aware, a building extension is in progress and when it is ready the new equipment already on order will be installed. I am chary of estimating when the building will be finished in view of present shortages of materials.

Mr. Freeman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that will be very favourably received by the community of Monmouthshire, particularly Newport? In view of the long delays which have occurred in connection with this installation, will he make every effort to press it forward with all possible speed?

Mr. Gammans: I can assure the hon. Member that there will be no delay if we can possibly avoid it.

Brixton

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for telephones on the Brixton exchange are now outstanding; and what progress is being made in granting such applications.

Mr. Gammans: One thousand four hundred and three applications were outstanding on the 31st December, 1951. The exchange equipment is being extended and when the work is completed towards the end of this year we shall be able to give service to many of the present waiting applicants.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the very large number of outstanding applications—

Sir T. Moore: They have been outstanding for some years.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: —can the hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any improvement at all during the past few months and how many of the applications will still be without a telephone at the end of 1952?

Mr. Gammans: That is another question, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put it down I will give him an answer.

Burton

Mr. Arthur Colegate: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for telephone installations are outstanding in the Uttoxeter, Tutbury and Burton-on-Trent areas, respectively; and how many applicants, it is estimated, are likely to obtain installations during the current year.

Mr. Gammans: The applications outstanding at 31st December, 1951, were 116, 35 and 147. During the current year it is hoped to provide up to 400 new lines in the three areas.

Mr. Colegate: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, when allocating telephone equipment, that this area has greatly changed its character in recent years and is now an important engineering and industrial centre exporting large quantities of manufactures?

Mr. Gammans: Yes, Sir, I have that point in mind.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: May I ask for an assurance that, as a result of the Parliamentary Questions which are being asked in regard to particular areas, the fact will not be overlooked that other hon. Gentlemen who have not asked Questions have exactly similar problems?

Mr. Gammans: I readily give that assurance.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

European Service Wavelength

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when he proposes to honour the pledge of his Department to restore Stagshaw's own wavelength, 267 metres, which was taken during the war for operating the European broadcasting service.

Mr. Gammans: I am unable to trace the pledge to which my hon. Friend refers; if she will let me have further particulars, I shall be happy to look into the matter. Under the Copenhagen Plan of 1950, the wavelength of 267 metres has not been allocated to this country.

Miss Ward: I will immediately send my hon. Friend the information for which he asks. May I, then, have an assurance that he will redeem the pledge that was given to the Northern Region?

Mr. Gammans: Perhaps the hon. Lady will send the information.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a way out of the hon. Lady's difficulty would be to put the Stagshaw and Holme Moss transmitters upon the same wavelength?

Miss Ward: Will my hon. Friend please answer that question?

Wenvoe Station

Captain Richard Pilkington: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when he expects the new television transmitter at the Wenvoe Station, which is scheduled to cover south-west England, to be completed.

Mr. Gammans: It is too early to say when the high power transmitter will be completed, but the B.B.C. hopes to open the station on low power in August.

Mr. Edward Short: In considering this matter, will the Assistant Postmaster-General bear in mind that one of the most populous and productive parts of the country, the north-east, is without a television service of any kind?

Mr. Gammans: I am aware of that, but it does not arise on this Question.

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when he anticipates that the Wenvoe television transmitter will be in operation.

Mr. Gammans: The B.B.C. hopes to open the station on low power in August.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: Is the low power transmitter which the B.B.C. are to use for this area the one that should have been erected at Pontop Pike and which would have given the North-East Coast the television they desire?

Mr. Gammans: I should want notice of that question.

North-East Coast (Reception)

Mr. Richard Wood: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to improve the reception of British Broadcasting Corporation programmes in the north-eastern coastal area.

Mr. Gammans: We have asked the Soviet Administration to reduce the interference being caused by a Russian station to reception of the Northern Home Service on 434 metres in the Yorkshire coastal area. Last November the B.B.C. provided a Home Service transmitter working on 261 metres to serve Scarborough and the immediate neighbourhood. The best hope for an improved sound broadcasting service lies in the use of very high frequencies, but owing to defence and economic requirements, it is too early to say when this will be possible.

Mr. Wood: Does my hon. Friend think that his efforts in this direction will be attended by better success than the efforts of his predecessors?

Mr. Gammans: It is anybody's guess as to what will be the result of representations made to the Soviet Government.

B.B.C. (Trade Union Recognition)

Mr. Hobson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what progress has been made by the British Broadcasting Corporation, in consultation with the Trades Union Congress, for recognition by the British Broadcasting Corporation of affiliated trade unions.

Mr. Gammans: This is primarily a matter for the B.B.C. The Corporation have informed my noble Friend that, after expressing readiness to accept the Broadcasting Committee's recommendation No. 93 as a whole, they have had several meetings with representatives of the Trades Union Congress and the unions concerned with the object of reaching a working arrangement on that basis. Negotiations are still going on.

Mr. Hobson: Does the hon. Gentleman's reply mean that the British Broadcasting Corporation are now prepared to recognise trade unions affiliated to the Trades Union Congress?

Mr. Gammans: I suggest that the hon. Member waits until the negotiations are finished.

Mr. Hobson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the negotiations have been going on for two years? Is he also aware that as a result of the Terrington Committee Report he will be further strengthened in giving the B.B.C. instructions to recognise trade unions?

Mr. Gammans: It is not a part of my duty, any more than it was a part of the hon. Member's duty when he was Assistant Postmaster-General, to give the B.B.C. instructions in a matter of this sort.

Mr. Ness Edwards: As the B.B.C. Charter is being discussed, as the observations of the B.B.C. have been obtained upon the terms and conditions of the Charter, and as the B.B.C. itself undertook to carry out that recommendation last June, surely we could have a little more speed?

Mr. Gammans: There is no evidence that the B.B.C. is not prepared to accept the recommendation. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman could have heard what I said. I told the House that the negotiations are still proceeding.

Mr. Shinwell: As every responsible authority in the country, local and national, and big industrial corporations, recognise trade unions, would it not be wise on the part of the Government to see that the B.B.C. also does so?

Mr. Gammans: The B.B.C. has already said that it is prepared to accept recommendation No. 93 of the Broadcasting Commission Report as a whole.

Mr. Hobson: Why has it not already done so?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

South Bank Site (Airstop)

Mr. Norman Dodds: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation if he will consider constructing a helidrome on the South Bank site in connection with the development of helicopter passenger transport; and if he will take the necessary action to discuss the matter with the various interests concerned.

The Minister of Civil Aviation (Mr. John Maclay): Yes, Sir; I am at present discussing with those concerned the possibility of reserving a site on the South Bank as an airstop.

Passenger Landing Charge

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation the reason for the imposition of a passenger-landing charge at British airports; and the estimated annual yield.

Mr. Maclay: The charge will make a contribution towards the cost of providing services and facilities for passengers at State airports. In this way the net cost to the Exchequer of operating the airports will be reduced. The yield in the coming financial year is estimated at £200,000.

Mr. Davies: Was there full consultation with the corporations before this charge was imposed, and was full weight given to their views and to the possibility of great inconvenience to passengers, particularly to tourists?

Mr. Maclay: Full weight was given to all those considerations. I should add that the corporations were consulted about the method of imposing this charge.

Mr. G. B. Drayson: Is it the intention of the Minister that this charge should be included in the passenger tickets and paid by the air companies, or that passengers should pay the charge separately upon arrival?

Mr. Maclay: It is a matter for the air line operators concerned as to the most convenient and most practicable method of imposing the charge.

Mr. F. Beswick: Were other countries consulted in regard to the charge?

Mr. Maclay: Other countries were not consulted in the matter.

Mr. George Wood: Has the Minister considered grading the charge so that passengers coming long distances, for example across the Atlantic, pay more than passengers coming short distances, as from Paris?

Mr. Maclay: Yes, Sir. The question of grading has been considered, and grading is in fact applied.

Lieut.-Colonel H. M. Hyde: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation whether the new service charge of 5s. for each passenger arriving at United Kingdom airports from Europe will apply, under his regulations, to passengers from Eire.

Mr. Maclay: Yes, Sir.

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: Does the Minister not agree that in the case of citizens of Eire the charge should be remitted, in accordance with the principle laid down in the Nationality Act that those citizens are to be treated as far as possible as citizens of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Maclay: There are a lot of considerations to be remembered in connection with this matter, but the principal one is that Eire cannot be considered for this purpose as an internal service. It is a question of internal and external services.

B.O.A.C. Tourist Services

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation what proposals the British Overseas Airways Corporation have put forward for tourist class services; when the proposals were submitted; and why they have not been approved.

Mr. Maclay: British Overseas Airways Corporation propose to operate tourist services across the North Atlantic from 1st May, 1952, in accordance with an agreement reached by the International Air Transport Association. This agreement was submitted for the United Kingdom Government's approval on 21st December, 1951, and has been approved, but I understand that the agreement has not yet been approved by all Governments concerned.

Mr. Beswick: In view of the fact that the Department have pressed for tourist services for a long period of years, is it not unfortunate that the Corporation have had to advertise them for the last five weeks as being subject to Government approval?

Mr. Maclay: This arises solely out of the procedure followed by the Internationl Air Transport Association, which provides that all these agreements must be approved by all the Governments of member airlines.

Mr. Beswick: Will the Minister ask the Corporations to make it clear that it is

not because of any laxity on the part of the hon. Gentleman's Department that approval has not been given?

Mr. Maclay: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that all other airlines, foreign airlines too, have the same qualifying clause in their announcements.

EX-PRISONERS OF WAR, JAPAN (COMPENSATION)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made towards a settlement of the amount to be paid to former Far Eastern prisoners of war, or to their dependants.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 20th February to the hon. and gallant Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott). It is not possible to give a more exact estimate of value of these assets than has already been given to the House, namely about £5 million.

Mr. Thomas: Can the Minister give us an idea when the settlement is likely to be reached? Do we understand from the previous answer that it will be when the Treaty has been ratified by all concerned?

Mr. Nutting: That is perfectly correct. When the Treaty is in force, we can lay our hands on those assets, under Article 14 in this country and under Article 16 in neutral and ex-enemy countries.

ARAB COUNTRIES (U.K. MISSION)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the composition of the delegation to certain Arab countries led by Sir Roger Makins; which countries it will visit; for what purposes; in what form its report will be made; and whether any parts of it will be made public.

Mr. Nutting: Sir Roger Makins is accompanied by another member of the Foreign Office staff and by representatives of the Treasury and of the Bank of England. The territories which he is


visiting are Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Sharjah, Dubai, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, where he has paid a call on King Ibn Saud.
The object of the mission is to enable a senior official of the Foreign Office to study at first hand and to discuss with those Rulers of the Persian Gulf to whom Her Majesty's Government have special responsibilities and with their principal advisers, the general situation in the area and in particular the problems arising out of the recent greatly increased production of oil in the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf.
On his return, Sir Roger Makins will report to my right hon. Friend and he will consider whether any parts of his report can be made public.

Major Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the previous Government showed very little realisation of the fast growing political and economic importance of these friendly Arab countries and that the steps which he has now taken in this direction are most welcome?

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Since the wise investment in, and the immense revenues which are coming from these territories by way of foreign royalties is a matter of great public importance, which will certainly affect the prospects of peace and progress in the Middle East, will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to consider favourably the publication of those parts of the report of Sir Roger Makins which deal with that aspect?

Mr. Nutting: I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend to consider that request.

Mr. M. Philips Price: May I ask whether the delegation will discuss with the Government of Iraq the future of the Habbaniyah and Basra airfields.

Mr. Nutting: I cannot answer that question without notice, but I have no doubt that all these matters have been discussed between Sir Roger Makins and the Iraq Government.

POST OFFICE (ORGANISATION)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the advantages of turning the Post Office into a trading corporation; and whether the Government will take action in this respect.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): The 1932 Bridgeman Committee thoroughly examined this suggestion. They recommended against making any such change. I see no need to reopen the question today.

ROYAL STYLE AND TITLES

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation dealing with the form of the Royal Style and Titles.

Mr. John Rankin: asked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation concerning the style and title of the Sovereign, in view of the decisions taken by the Commonwealth Conference of 1948.

The Prime Minister: I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this question. The hon. Members will realise that, in view of the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster, this is a matter which concerns not only this Parliament but those of other Commonwealth countries as well.

Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in giving thought to this matter, pay attention to the findings of the Commonwealth Conference of 1948 which recommended that the continued use of the description "British Commonwealth" no longer harmonises with existing relationships within the Commonwealth and recommended that the phrase "The Commonwealth" should be used in describing the association?

The Prime Minister: I should hestitate to attempt to make constitutional pronouncements in reply to a supplementary question, but the point of the hon. Member will be recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT and I am sure that it will be taken into consideration when these matters are being decided.

Sir I. Fraser: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Royal Style and Titles used in the Proclamation were valid or whether they require statutory authority to validate them?

The Prime Minister: I should not venture to trespass on such difficult and dangerous ground.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the variety used in the various Proclamations of Accession in different Commonwealth countries might now make it wise to consider taking an initiative with Commonwealth Governments on the matter of changing the Royal Style and Titles?

The Prime Minister: I certainly think the various versions which have appeared should confront us all with the need of considering these matters in the future in order that there may be the fullest possible agreement, but sometimes agreement is reached as a result of variety.

Mr. Rankin: May I thank the Prime Minister for his answer and, when he is considering the matter, will he also give thought to the fact that so far as the designation of the Sovereign is concerned there have been Scottish criticisms, and would he pay attention to those also?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? There have been different Questions on the Order Paper this week in which the Sovereign has been referred to as "Elizabeth II." Is this historically accurate? Also I notice that the title "Elizabeth II" has been dropped from today's Order Paper, and I want to ask if it is as a result of your guidance, Sir, knowing the history of Scotland?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly it is not the result of any intervention on my part.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

New Zealand Meat Agreement

Miss Elaine Burton: asked the Minister of Food how far the agreement of a 15-year meat pact with New Zealand represents a change of policy by Her Majesty's Government towards bulk buying and long-term agreements.

The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): None, Sir. This is not an undertaking that the British Government will buy New Zealand meat, for 15 years or for any term, but that for that period New Zealand shall be free to send all her surplus here without restriction of quantity.

Miss Burton: Would not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that that is a splitting of hairs? Is he further aware that one of the things which the British

public understood at the last Election was that Members opposite were against any form of bulk agreement such as we have had in the last few years?

Major Lloyd George: I do not agree with the suggestion that this is a splitting of hairs. This is a question of giving the New Zealand producers a guarantee that we will take all—[Laughter.] That is not quite so humorous as hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think, because before the war there were quantitative restrictions on Dominion imports to this country. This is an assurance that, whether it be by Government purchase or individual purchase, this country will take all they can produce for 15 years.

Miss Burton: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman what Government was in power before the war and which Government first introduced these bulk agreements?

Major Lloyd George: The Government which instituted bulk agreements was the late Government and they made an agreement which does not expire until 1955. We made it perfectly clear at all times when discussing bulk buying that we would under no circumstances break any contracts already made.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake on behalf of the Government to extend this principle of long-term purchasing to both Australia and the Argentine?

Major Lloyd George: Australia already has a 15 years' agreement.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Without the foresight of a Labour Government over bulk purchase, can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say what the ration would be today?

Major Lloyd George: I should think that if we had not had bulk purchase immediately after the war the ration would be much greater than it is today.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Cyril Osborne: Is the Minister aware that the people of this country are not a bit interested in whether the meat is purchased by private agreement or by bulk purchase? What they are interested in is getting more meat.

Mr. Henry Usborne: In view of what the Minister said earlier, is it not correct that the difference between the policy of this Government and the previous one is that whereas that Government agreed with bulk purchase, this Government agrees with even bigger bulk purchases?

Major Lloyd George: I think the hon. Gentleman is getting a little mixed, if I may say so. There is a great difference in concluding an agreement with a definite provision that it does not preclude private purchase when the time comes. This does not tie us to 15 years' bulk purchase; it is simply an assurance to the producers that this market is open to them.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Yes, but can the Minister explain how the necessary assurance could be given to the producers without Government purchases?

Major Lloyd George: We have done the same thing in regard to sugar. The sugar traders are perfectly happy with their agreement and are prepared to take it over. I am satisfied that the same obtains with regard to this.

Oral Answers to Questions — Queensland Food Corporation

Mr. Anthony Hurd: asked the Minister of Food if the Government have now reached a decision about the future of the British Queensland Food Corporation.

Major Lloyd George: The Corporation have recently decided to seek the advice of a few people of knowledge

and standing on the best methods of achieving the objects for which the Corporation was set up. Any decision about the future of the Corporation is a matter for the Queensland Government jointly with ourselves. I think it essential to await a report from the Board before discussing the matter with the Queensland Government.

Mr. Hurd: Will this review cover the question of whether there are good reasons for this continuing as a State enterprise or whether we should not get just as much food, and more cheaply, if it were handed to private enterprise?

Major Lloyd George: I believe that when the original agreement was come to in 1948, there was an undertaking that within seven years the whole question would be examined to see what the future of it would be.

Mr. Hurd: That is now being done?

Major Lloyd George: indicated assent.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings of the Committee on Licensed Premises in New Towns [Money], on the Agriculture (Fertilisers) Bill, on the Export Guarantees Bill and of the Committee on Export Guarantees [Money] be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House). —[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 269 Noes, 216.

Division No. 33.]
AYES
[3.30 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bossom, A. C.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Davidson, Viscountess


Alport, C. J. M.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Braine, B. R.
De la Bère, R.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Digby, S. Wingfield


Anstruther-Gray, Maj. W. J.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Arbuthnot, John
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Donner, P. W.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bullock, Capt. M.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Astor, Hon, J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Butcher, H. W.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Drayson, G. D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Carson, Hon. E.
Drewe, C.


Barber, A. P. L.
Cary, Sir Robert
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)


Barlow, Sir John
Channon, H.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Baxter, A. B.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Duthie, W. S.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fell, A.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Finlay, Graeme


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Colegate, W. A.
Fisher, Nigel


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Fletcher, Walter (Bury)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Cranborne, Viscount
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Birch, Nigel
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Foster, John


Bishop, F. P.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Black, C. W.
Crouch, R. F.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell




Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Roper, Sir Harold


Gammans, L. D.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Russell, R. S.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Scott, R. Donald


Godber, J. B.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
McAdden, S. J.
Shepherd, William


Gough, C. F. H.
McCallum, Major D.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Gower, H. R.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Graham, Sir Fergus
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Grimond, J.
McKibbin, A. J.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Snadden, W. McN.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maclay, Hon. John
Soames, Capt. C.


Harden, J. R. E.
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hare, Hon. J. H.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Speir, R. M.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Stevens, G. P.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hay, John
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Heald, Sir Lionel
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Storey, S.


Heath, Edward
Maude, Angus
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Henderson John (Cathcart)
Maudling, R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Studholme, H. G.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Mellor, Sir John
Summers, G. S.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Molson, A. H. E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Teeling, W.


Hollis, M. C.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Nicholls, Harmar
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Holt, A. F.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Hope, Lord John
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hopkinson, Henry
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Tilney, John


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Touche, G. C.


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Nutting, Anthony
Turner, H. F. L.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Oakshott, H. D.
Turton, R. H.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Odey, G. W.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Hurd, A. R.
Ormsby-Goro, Hon. W. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vosper, D. F.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Oswald, T.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Partridge, E.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Jennings, R.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Watkinson, H. A.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Pitman, I. J.
Wellwood, W.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Powell, J. Enoch
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Kaberry, D.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Keeling, Sir Edward
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Profumo, J. D.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Raikes, H. V.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wills, G.


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Redmayne, M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wood, Hon. R.


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Renton, D. L. M.
York, C.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)



Lindsay, Martin
Robertson, Sir David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Linstead, H. N.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Major Conant and


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Robson-Brown, W.
Mr. Richard Thompson.




NOES


Adams, Richard
Bing, G. H. C.
Champion, A. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blackburn, F.
Chapman, W. D.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Blenkinsop, A.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Boardman, H.
Clunie, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Cocks F. S.


Awbery, S. S.
Bowden, H. W.
Coldrick, W.


Ayles, W. H.
Bowles, F. G.
Collick, P. H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Cook, T. F.


Baird, J.
Brockway, A. F.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Balfour, A.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Crosland C. A. R.


Beattie, J.
Burke, W. A.
Crossman, R. H. S.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Burton, Miss F. E.
Daines, P.


Bence, C. R.
Callaghan, L. J.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Benn, Wedgwood
Carmichael, J.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Benson, G.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)







Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rhodes, H.


Dodds, N. N.
Kenyon, C.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Donnelly, D. L.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Driberg, T. E. N.
King, Dr. H. M.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Kinley, J.
Ross, William


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Royle, C.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Short, E. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lindgren, G. S.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Logan, D. G.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S)


Ewart, R.
MacColl, J. E.
Snow, J. W.


Fernyhough, E.
McGhee, H. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Field, Capt. W. J.
McGovern, J.
Sparks, J. A.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
McInnes, J.
Steele, T.


Follick, M.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Foot, M. M.
McLeavy, F.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Forman, J. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Glanville, James
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Gooch, E. G.
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mayhew, C. P.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Monslow, W.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morley, R.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Timmons, J.


Hamilton, W. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Viant, S. P.


Hannan, W.
Mort, D. L.
Wallace, H. W


Hardy, E. A.
Moyle, A.
Watkins, T. E.


Hargreaves, A.
Mulley, F. W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hayman, F. H.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
West, D. G.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Oldfield, W. H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Herbison, Miss M.
O'Neill, M. (Mid-Ulster)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hobson, C. R.
Orbach, M.
Wigg, G. E. C.


Holman, P.
Oswald, T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Paget, R. T.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Hoy, J. H.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Hubbard, T. F.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Pannell, Charles
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paton, J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pearson, A.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Peart, T. F.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Porter, G.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Janner, B.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Wyatt, W. L.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Proctor, W. T.



Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reeves, J.
Mr. Popplewell and




Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

Orders of the Day — LICENSED PREMISES IN NEW TOWNS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.43 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The purpose of this Bill is to carry into effect the Government's intention, which I announced in answer to a Question on 6th December, to repeal those provisions of the Licensing Act, 1949, which extended State management to the new towns, and to make the development corporations and the licensing justices jointly responsible for deciding the number and siting of new licensed premises to be constructed in each new town.
May I mention the problem which faced my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself when we came into office? A large sum of more than £1 million had been included in this year's Estimates for the acquisition of premises in the new towns. Although a very small fraction of that sum had actually been spent, it was obvious that a further very large sum would have to be included in next year's Estimates for acquiring the remainder of the houses, because the total number was 205. My predecessor had asked the local advisory committees under the Act for their views on which of these premises should be included, and the news of the contemplated purchase had raised vigorous opposition in the new towns, opposition which was not at all confined to the trade.
The position we found was that the building of three new houses was about to begin and plans had reached various stages for another 12, or more. That is the physical side, the bricks and mortar side, of the matter. Plans were also being made to set up a local organisation to control and supervise the houses built or acquired. As everyone will realise, these new towns are far from Carlisle, too far to extend the existing organisation. It was, therefore, a question of setting up an entirely new organisation in the southern parts of the Kingdom with

a number of sub-divisions, as the new towns are scattered all over the country.
I may summarise the serious disadvantages as they appeared to me if this policy was continued. It meant taking immediate measures involving spending a great deal of money in acquiring existing houses, in building new ones and in setting up a local organisation in the South. In addition to that, in a number of the new towns, obviously, if we can give any weight to the expression of opinion, we would have antagonised and upset local people if we had persisted in the former policy of giving existing tenants a choice between becoming State managers or going elsewhere.
Without these difficulties it is not always easy—I do not put it higher—to reconcile the people in the neighbourhood to the changes involved in creating a new town. I came to the conclusion that persistence in State management of public houses was all too likely to stir up antagonism and suspicion among the existing population. Therefore, I was bound to ask whether the game was worth the candle? What would be achieved by this policy which had been initiated and had proceeded to the extent I have mentioned?
I looked at the objects of the 1949 Act and I read, with the pleasure which his literary compositions always give me, the speeches that the right hon. Gentleman my predecessor made at that time. I do not think there could be any doubt that the objects of the policy—which, after all, are the criteria by which it should be judged—were to ensure that the public houses in the new towns were satisfactory in numbers and quality, and were properly town planned.
Although certain people had other reasons, it was almost entirely on the ground of planning that the late Administration justified applying State management to new towns. I remember the right hon. Gentleman taking great pains to show that this was not the thin end of the wedge of nationalisation of the drink trade. That was an aspect of it which he disowned entirely; he spent a good deal of time and eloquence disavowing it when the Bill was before the House. There was a faint suggestion that no one might come forward to run the public houses, but I do not think that was a very large calibre gun in the battery of the right hon. Gentleman.
These being the declared objects, we have to consider—and I ask everyone to approach the problem quite objectively —whether the problem of satisfactory licensing arrangements in the new towns is a difficult one or not. I say that it is not a difficult problem. It is only necessary to adapt the existing provisions which have been thought out and placed in legislative form for licensing and town planning and in one case, to which I shall refer in a moment, a combination of both at the same time. I do not believe, having reconsidered this matter again after an interval of three years, that there is any need to bring in direct intervention by the State.
May I say this about the position of licensing justices? Although de jure the powers of licensing justices are negative in form, their ability to prevent bad public houses becomes de facto an encouragement of what is good in accommodation and design of the houses. I do not think that any fair-minded person who has seen the types and designs of houses built in the last 30 years would deny that there has been an immense improvement in design and layout, accommodation and amenities.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman also agree that most of these modern type houses put up by the brewers are managed on their behalf by managers and not owned by the people running them?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Certainly, I accept that at once. What I have had to say applies to houses owned by the brewers where the licensee is a manager just as much as where the licensee is a tenant. The point to which I was drawing the attention of the House, if I may be forgiven for elaborating it in answer to the hon. Member, is that all the conditions—accommodation, space for drinking, ventilation and other amenities—laid down by the Southborough Report on disinterested management 25 years ago have become common form for the reason that licensing justices all over England have said, "It is our duty to see that no house except one of that kind shall be given a licence."
I agree there are exceptions[Laughter]—well, it is very easy to be cynical about unpaid public servants. I

have had a great deal of experience of this matter in the North of England, where my constituency lies, as well as the districts round London where I have lived for the last 12 years. I say that the job done by licensing justices in the last 30 years has been a good and constructive job, and it is only fair that this House should not be cynical about it.

Mr. Mellish: With respect, I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is dealing with the point I endeavoured to raise. In regard to most of these houses, we agree that their quality, size, and so on, are admirable; but the principle involved is whether or not they are run by the brewers for themselves, or whether they allow private enterprise to run them on their behalf. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must agree that most are run by the brewers for their own profit.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am not considering that point, but, after all, the brewers are private enterprise. I gather that was one of the objections to them. I am not trying to make—

Mr. M. Follick: What about monopoly?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am quite prepared to discuss the question of monopoly in its proper setting, but I do not believe anyone would be successful in referring to the Board of Trade under the Monopolies Act the position in which we find competing breweries going out for new licences. After all, everyone, including hon. Members on the benches opposite, has had the chance of referring this to the Board of Trade under the Monopolies Act. Nobody has done it and I do not think that is a very good point.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: May I say a word about interruptions? As the House knows, I am always anxious to give way, but I do want some chance to put forward a coherent argument. I will give way to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) and the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), but I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will recognise that, unless I am given some opportunity of advancing a


coherent argument, it is not quite fair to the case I am presenting.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: As I shall have an opportunity to speak later, I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough.

Mr. William Ross: May I make one interruption of my own? Can we have a promise that we shall hear from the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Scottish aspects of this case?

Sir a Maxwell Fyfe: If I may be quite frank, I had decided to leave it to see how the debate develops. I was proposing to deal with certain aspects of that matter myself, but may I leave it like that for the moment? I will do my utmost to answer any points on the Scottish Clauses. If any point arises, my hon. Friends and I will consider the matter and whether an answer is necessary.

Mr. Ede: I agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about interruptions. I hope he will be allowed to put his case coherently, and I hope the arrangement will be mutual between the two sides of the House. Referring to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), it is hoped that my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) will succeed in catching Mr. Speaker's eye at some period during the debate so that he may refer to some Scottish aspects of this matter. It would not be fair to leave the right hon. and learned Gentleman in any doubt that we shall raise specific Scottish questions.

Mr. Follick: Regarding the question of monopoly, there is this difference; that where the brewery own a house they insist that only their beer shall be sold in that house. There is that difference between ordinary free enterprise and that sort of free enterprise.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think the position about the availability of beer is one about which I may say, without any disrespect, there is pretty considerable knowledge in the House. I know that everyone in the House realises the position, but of course I do not wish to

make any bad points. If there is a house tied to a certain brewery, naturally that brewery wish to sell their own beer; but they may have supplies of other beers, especially bottled beer, for the convenience of customers. It is on that basis that I deal with the argument.
I repeat that I do not think that anyone who has considered licensing problems would deny that, over the last 30 years, there has been an enormous and visible improvement in the types of houses that have been erected. I wanted to put that particular point, which I think one fairly can, because I see that some hon. Gentlemen opposite, with experience of local government and local work, agree with me, that in that regard the licensing justices have done a good job.
The other aspect which we have to consider—and it is one in which the licensing justices have not got such clear powers—is the siting and town planning of houses. They can do a great deal by general influence, but we have to invent machinery which will secure not only the best types of houses from the point of view of accommodation, but that the houses are placed so as best to meet the needs of the people in the area. That is the problem which has to be faced, and it is the problem which we have sought to solve by the co-operation between the licensing justices and the development corporations which is suggested in this Bill.
I should like the House to consider the matter for a moment from the standpoint of the development corporations. The first duty of the development corporations is to build their new towns as balanced living communities, with adequate and worthy social amenities. If that is the purpose of the development corporations and that is their general responsibility, why should they have licensing alone excluded from their competence? As I understand it—and I have listened to a great many discussions in the last six years—the House as a whole has every confidence in the ability and readiness of the development corporations to play their part. I have taken part in most of the discussions on licensing matters, but I have never heard any serious criticism of the way licensing justices carry out their work.
Therefore, if we have two local bodies in whom the House has confidence, I can see no justification for thrusting them aside in order that the State may intervene. On the contrary, I believe that local bodies are in a better position than the State management organisation to do this job. As I have already indicated, a point that seemed to me of great importance is that State management would experience great difficulty administratively in setting up a satisfactory organisation for widely separated and relatively small groups of public houses, especially if that organisation had to operate in an atmosphere which, in places, would prove to be frankly hostile.
When we find that, in the present situation, by leaving the job to the people on the spot we shall avoid a large expenditure of public money which it would be impossible to justify—above all, at the present time—then I think the argument is reinforced. All that is needed, I suggest, to ensure satisfactory planning in the fullest sense—that is, the planning both of the size, accommodation and amenities of the houses and of their siting —is simple machinery to enable the development corporations and the licensing justices to co-operate fully in working out arrangements which will be satisfactory to both of them and to the public. In my view, this Bill provides such machinery
Now I want to turn—because it is an argument that has been advanced—to the position of, and a comparison with, existing State management schemes. Some people supported the Act of 1949, and regret the introduction of this Bill, because they admire the system in operation at Carlisle and the Scottish State management districts, and would like to see some of the features of that system extended to other parts of the country. I have tried to give my reasons for saying that, even assuming that there is an argument for further experiment in State management, which I do not admit, in my view the new towns are not the right places in which to carry it out: they present no special problem which calls for so drastic a remedy.
Somebody, at some stage, is sure to go back to the Royal Commission on Licensing, in England and Wales in 1929–31, and to quote carefully selected sentences from paragraph 418. I will give the House a sentence which, if I do

not quote it now, someone else will quote later on. The Commission recommended that
public ownership should be applied elsewhere in circumstances which will submit the system to a further test both in a social and in a financial sense.
But the same paragraph goes on to say:
An area in which there is such superfluity of licences as to make it doubtful whether our reduction proposals meet the case might be selected for the purpose.
In other words, they regarded State management as a possible remedy for extreme instances of maldistribution and superfluity of licensed premises.
My point is that the new towns are wholly different, and that no one has ever suggested that these conditions apply. In fact, I do not think one could imagine a situation more different from that of the new towns than the situation which existed at the time prior to the introduction—and which led to the introduction—of State management in the neighbourhood of Carlisle and Gretna in 1916. There the intervention by the State was to cure an actual social evil which called for an urgent remedy by extraordinary means.
Here, as I have said—and I do not think that anyone with goodwill can disagree with me—what we all want to do, whatever methods we choose, is to secure licensed premises of a high standard on the right sites and able to play a worthy part in the life of the new communities. When I say "all," the House will understand that I exclude the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), whose consistent, vigorous and good-tempered presentation of his views always delights the House, even though other hon. Members do not agree with him. But apart from that, it is the universal desire. We have no doubt that the right bodies to do this are the development corporations and the licensing justices, with the assistance of the trade.
Before I leave the report of the Licensing Commission, may I just remind hon. Members, and especially hon. Members from Scotland, that the Licensing Commission that dealt with Scotland put it very differently and very flatly? They said:
Apart from the official witnesses, the evidence before us was almost unanimous in condemnation of the system of State management.


Therefore, I do not think, as far as the Scottish problem is concerned, that the case for State management gets much help from the Royal Commission.
I will now deal with a point introduced by the hon. Member for Ealing, North. He said that the party to which I have the honour to belong did not place this matter before the electorate. I am not going into the very difficult argument—I say "difficult" because I remember the then Lord President of the Council wrestling with it in relation to the Act whose repeal we are considering today—whether a Government can do anything not specifically written into its election manifeso.
If I remember rightly—I do not pretend to quote him verbatim—the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) said of the Bill that this was not a matter which required to be put into an election manifesto. In fact, at that time he seemed to be taking the view that it was such a small matter as to be barely worth all the heights of his oratory, but that he would use it with the courtesy we all expect from him just to meet the argument that had been adduced. That was his attitude, that it was a comparatively minor matter and not one which required to be put into an election manifesto.
But whether the right hon. Gentleman is right or not, my party had fortunately made its position quite clear. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will have the recollection that the Conservative Party, through the instance of myself, moved the rejection of this Bill both on Second Reading and on Third Reading, and voted against the Third Reading, a course which is not followed unless the opposition to a Bill is strongly founded and persistent.
My I remind hon. Gentlemen opposite of the position on Second Reading? It was clearly an unpopular Measure. On Second Reading, those on the Conservative benches were supported by the Liberal Party and even by three hon. Members who had been returned as Socialists at the Election in 1945; and another 87 Socialist Members abstained. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a Bill which excited a great upsurge of party loyalty and determination on the benches supporting the Government of the day.
The Bill was also criticised in another place. That being three Sessions ago, I think I am in order in referring to the fact that the noble Lord who spoke for my party announced then that we should take the earliest opportunity of reversing these proceedings and abolishing State management. The country at that time had ample notice that we were not committed to the continuance of the 1949 Act, but were, in fact, going to repeal it.
During the Election itself—I have gone into this point carefully in view of what the hon. Gentleman opposite has said—all three political parties were approached very early in the campaign for a statement of their attitude towards this question. The party opposite stands on record as having replied—and a cautious reply is no bad thing at election times; far be it from me to complain—that the matter was on the agenda of the party executive meeting at Scarborough. I congratulate hon. Gentlemen opposite on this height, or shall I say depth, of non-committal answer. Then the Liberal Party were approached, and their reply was that the question would be left to the conscience of individual members. Again, far be it from me to criticise a reply couched in those terms.
But what the hon. Member is waiting for, of course, is the reply made on behalf of the Conservative Party by its Chairman, Lord Woolton. He said that the Conservatives strongly favoured repeal of the State management provision of the Act and would bring new town areas into line with the licensing laws in force for the rest of the country. That reply was widely reported in the Press, and the intentions of the Conservative Party were also mentioned in public speeches and articles by Conservative candidates. Time prevents me from giving these in detail, but the suggestion either that the decision to repeal the relevant provisions of the 1949 Act was taken without reflection or that the country was not aware of the Conservative Party's intentions is, I submit, without any foundation.

Mr. James Hudson: Did I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that Lord Woolton, as Chairman of the Conservative Party, made the statement which he has just read out, or was it an official statement of the Tory office?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I made inquiries and I was told it was Lord Woolton, and that the statement was given prominence in the Press. It was after the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I made inquiries, and that was the information given to me.
The next point with which I wish to deal is one which certain individual Members opposite have made—that this Bill is making a gift to the brewers. Again, I want hon. Members opposite to consider the position and to consider my argument that that is an erroneous and untrue suggestion. The reason I say it is untrue is that the ordinary law will apply and that the brewers who erect or acquire new houses will have to pay the monopoly value payable on any new licence.
I do not want to go into technicalities before the House, as I see hon. Gentlemen opposite who understand monopoly value very well, but I think they will agree that it is right to define it as the difference between the value of the premises with a licence and their value without—that is, the additional sum which has to be paid in order to get the right to sell and deal in liquor. It is a substantial sum, as hon. Gentleman who have sat as licensing magistrates or have appeared in licensing cases are well aware. That will have to be paid in the ordinary way. On the view that was expressed in the course of the debates—that any kind of beer would be obtainable in State public houses— brewers would have had their right in respect of wholesale profits.
An hon. Gentleman opposite has suggested that this Bill is either a brewers' Bill or has been produced at the instance of the brewers. I want to make it quite clear that I have had no consultation with the trade about these provisions. May I say at once—and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), my predecessor in office, would be the first to agree—that that is contrary to modern legislative practice. He had consultation with the brewers before he introduced his Bill in 1948. Modern legislative practice is to have consultation with those who are affected by the provisions of a Bill. But in view of the feeling which has already been expressed by an hon. Gentleman opposite, and by other people, I felt in these circumstances it was better that I should produce my

proposals without that consultation, because they would be my proposals and not the proposals of anyone else. I want to develop that—

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that matter, there is a point which is perturbing me considerably and I daresay other hon. Members, too. We had a statement made on behalf of the Conservative Party before the Election, but I doubt whether such wide publicity was given to it as we have been told. In any case, what I should like to know is what consultations there were between the party, or anyone speaking on behalf of the party, and the brewers.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: As I understand it, the circular the three replies to which I have read, including the reply from the party to which the hon. and learned Member belongs— he will remember that his party replied that the matter was on the agenda of the party executive meeting at Scarborough—was sent out by the trade to all parties, and it was answered in the way in which I am sure these questionnaires are answered by every party—after consultation in the party. The answer was given in that way.
I have stated the position on consultation. Of course, hon. Members will realise that I cannot leave the matter there because I admit at once that certain of the provisions of this Bill resemble the proposals which were put forward by the Brewers' Society before the 1949 Act to my predecessor, and which he explained to the House. I want to show where the resemblance comes and where the enormous difference comes between the proposals in this Bill and the proposals put forward to my predecessor.
The similar part of the proposals, namely, the constitution of the joint committee of licensing justices and the development corporation came from legislation which was passed by the Coalition Government in 1945 with the assent of both parties—the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1945. If the House will forgive the personal reference, I had the honour of introducing the Bill into the House in the regrettable but short indisposition of the then Home Secretary,


now the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South, who had influenza from which he quickly recovered.

Mr. Ede: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not suggesting it was a diplomatic illness, is he?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I would not be so rash as to connect anything diplomatic with the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South. That was the similar part of the proposals. The idea of the joint committee, of course, was taken from that Bill. The enormous difference, to which I referred, between this Bill and the proposals of the Brewers' Society in 1948 is greatly to the disadvantage of the brewers.
At that time the brewers asked, as regards England only, that provision should be made, following the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Act, for the removal of licences to a new town from the areas from which its population was to be drawn. That required a special statutory provision, as certain hon. Members opposite are well aware, because we know removal can only be made within a single county and not across a county boundary. It was sought that that right to remove should be given to the new town. The purpose, of course, was clear. It was to secure that no monopoly value should be payable because no monopoly value is payable when an existing licence is removed to new premises.
Therefore, if effect had been given to these proposals, the brewers would have been enabled to remove licences which are now in suspense or have become superfluous in London to the new towns and thus escape payment of monopoly value on any new public houses they were allowed to construct in the new towns. This Bill makes no such provision. The Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Act was concerned with the redistribution of licences in areas which had suffered severe war damage. I think it was reasonable then. Every part of the House thought it was reasonable that special provision should be made for licences suspended as a result of war conditions and that we should treat as a single unit the area from which they came and the area to which they were going, following a movement of popula-

tion, even if it was across county boundaries.
I believe that the idea that licences should follow population should not be pressed too far. If it is, one gets a highly artificial situation involving possible injustice to the local interest in the receiving area, and I do not think—and this is a view on which I have proceeded in drafting this Bill—that it is any more applicable to new towns than to any other form of long-term development involving movements of population across county boundaries. We therefore came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient justification for the proposal of the brewers, and rejected it.
I am sorry that I have taken up so much of the time of the House, and, therefore, unless any hon. Gentleman would like to ask me any special point, I shall deal rather briefly with the individual details of the Bill, because I do not think that they call for very detailed examination at this stage.

Mr. Frank Bowles: Might I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman one question, and perhaps you also, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Certain hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House are known to have shares in breweries and distilleries—[HON. MEMBERS: "And on the hon. Member's side."]—that is so. For the general guidance of the House, it would be interesting to know, as a vote is more a political act than a speech when one has to declare an interest, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would advise the House what those who are shareholders in the interests about which we are speaking should do.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: My recollection —subject of course to anything that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may say—is that on the Transport Bill my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) asked that question in relation to transport undertakings, and the then Speaker said that it must be a matter for the individual conscience of a Member according to how he considered those shares would affect the direction of his vote. I am quoting from memory and I would certainly say no more, beyond adding that that seems to be a very reasonable approach to the matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The Manual of Procedure says:
A Member may not vote on any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest. If he votes on such question his vote may, on motion, be disallowed.
In 1811, Mr. Speaker Abbot said:
The interest must be a direct pecuniary interest, and separately belonging to the persons whose votes were questioned, and not in common with the rest of His Majesty's subjects, or on a matter of state policy.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think that raises the question of what is a direct interest, and in regard to a shareholder's interest what I have quoted from memory would seem to be reasonable. I hope that my memory is correct. If I may say so with the greatest respect to you, Sir, what I gave as my recollection seems to me to be a very reasonable test for anyone who is considering the point.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have indicated that the test is "a direct pecuniary interest." Do I take it that what the Home Secretary is indicating is that shares held in any particular company does not constitute direct pecuniary interest?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not like giving legal opinions off the reel. After all, I have left that part of my life behind me. I notice that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch is present, and I am sure he will check me if he sees any divergence, as will the hon. and learned Gentleman sitting in front of him. Again, my recollection is that, in the case of the Act which deals with disqualification on the ground of contracting with the Government, the contracting by a company in which someone holds shares is not direct contracting within the meaning of the Act.

Mr. Bing: If the Home Secretary will allow me to say so, my recollection, for what it is worth, is the same as his own. I think that the question of propriety in this matter would arise in the case of those persons who are either shareholders or directors of firms which might acquire a monopoly in a new town and which would otherwise not have an opportunity of trading therein. I have not got the Brewers' Almanack with me, but speaking without reference to any hon. Member,

I would say that if there is someone who is selling Guinness in any event, I should not think that the point arises, but if there is someone who might have a tied house it would, in my submission, be wrong for persons interested in that matter to vote.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As points of order may arise, it may simplify the matter if I quote further from the Manual of Procedure, which says:
The objection to a vote on the ground of personal interest must be taken by a substantive motion, should be taken at once, and cannot be raised as a point of order.

Mr. Bowles: That means that after the Division we should call attention to the votes which we consider are disqualified?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It must be taken at once, and obviously it cannot be taken before the vote.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Surely the whole point is that no brewery can decide whether they will have a chance of being granted such a licence or not. How can they tell whether they may have a chance? It is at this stage all a question of supposition.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Further to that point, I do not think my right hon. and learned Friend has left the matter in a satisfactory position. I do not think it is satisfactory for him just to say that it is a matter for each individual's conscience. If I may state my own case, I am chairman of a distillery which would not be involved in an application for a new licence, but I have shares in a certain brewery. I have not the faintest knowledge whether that brewery would attempt to apply for a licence or not. I do not want this question left to my own conscience. I desire a directive in this matter, and I earnestly ask you, Sir, to give it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot agree to give a directive in a matter which falls to be decided by a vote of the House on a substantive Motion.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: This is a somewhat lengthy interlude in what I am afraid is a somewhat lengthy speech. Despite my hon. Friend's difficulty, I believe that what the matter comes to is that every hon. Member has to consider the effect of his shareholding on his vote,


as the late Speaker suggested in regard to similar provisions, and I am sure that if hon. Gentlemen approach it in that way they will find that the answer is one which they can reach without a great deal of difficulty.
I proceed to the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 repeals the provisions which extended State management to the new towns. Clause 2 provides for the establishment of the committees which I have explained, consisting half of licensing justices and half of representatives of the development corporation and a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State.
Clause 3 deals with the duties of the committees, namely, deciding where new licensed premises are to be placed and specifying the type of accommodation and the services to be provided. It provides that the proposals shall be published, and that there will be full opportunity for local objections to be made and considered before proposals are confirmed or otherwise. These proposals will be confirmed or modified or rejected by the Minister of Housing and Local Government in England or by the Secretary of State in Scotland.
Clause 4 deals with the licensing justices, and it will be seen that it restricts their powers in this way: they are required to grant any application for a new licence or for the removal of an existing licence which is made in accordance with the committee's proposal and approved by the Minister. They are forbidden to grant any application for a new licence or a removal which has not been so approved, but they retain the power which exists with regard to renewal of a licence or a special removal of refusing on the ground of the fitness either of the premises or of the licensee.
There is also a transitional provision requiring the licensing authorities to grant licences for premises certified by the Secretary of State as having been approved by him in consultation with the development corporation before the Bill comes into force. The purpose of that is to ensure that there is no delay in licensing urgently required new premises, and I mentioned at the commencement of my speech that certain of these are being built or have been planned. Under the last Act there was a local advisory committee set up, and the site of certain of

the new premises had to be approved by such a committee. If it had to be approved again by the new committee there would be serious delay, and that we want to avoid.
Clause 5 deals with the position of the licensing justice. It provides that he will not be disqualified if he sits on the committee which follows the provision in the Licensing Planning Act: it would be rather absurd if he were disqualified for doing what is intended to be done under the Act, which is to act in co-operation with the development corporation. Clause 6 deals with the position after the development corporation has been wound up, because the provisions of the Bill will cease to apply to the new towns and the ordinary law will take its course.
Then there are the provisions in Clause 7 which set out very fully the application of the Bill to Scotland, and provide for the differences in the licensing law and the different conception of the annual licence which applies in Scotland.
The result is that the Bill provides machinery for deciding where and what new premises are to be built. It will be for the development corporation, as the owners of the land to be developed in the new towns, to decide who is to build them and who is to apply. We believe, as I have said, that the application of State management to the new towns by the Act of 1949 was a false start and, as I have indicated, the work of implementing that Act has not gone far enough for a change at this stage to cause any administrative difficulty or practical inconvenience.
The change will not delay the provision of the needed licensed premises to any of the new towns. On the other hand, the change must be made at once so that plans proceed on the new basis; and we believe that the Bill will make a fresh start by substituting simple workmanlike arrangements, ensuring satisfactory town planning and also ensuring no unnecessary departure from the arrangements to which we are accustomed throughout the country.
We have tried to conform to what I have indicated all along is the governing consideration, namely, that we should try to give local bodies and local people a chance of dealing with local matters


before we bring in the steam-hammer of State action. It is as a reasonable method of achieving that result that I commend the Bill to the House.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I have to thank the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) for the compliment he paid to the literary quality of my past speeches. Let me say that I myself have never recognised their literary grace sufficiently to be able to read them again.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman brings a Bill before us this afternoon which at least secures effectively that every house erected in a new town shall be a tied house. That is the first great triumph of the brewers, and I do not wonder that he did not need to consult them, because what more could they ask for even if he had seen them? I was very close to the point of interrupting him, but in view of what I had said, I forebore, because I do not agree with his statement of what happened during my consultations with the brewers. I detailed this on 14th December, 1948, when I was introducing my own Bill. I set it out quite clearly, and. as far as I know, it has never been challenged.
On that date I set out that a letter had been received by me from the brewers asking not for licensing planning arrangements but for the arrangement by which they should be able to take a licence from the place from which it was believed that the population of the new town was coming and transfer it into the place where the new town was, so that everybody should be able to see the same licensee, no matter whether it was in Bermondsey or Stevenage. I pointed out that that really could not happen. Of course, it would involve a very substantial alteration of the law, or an adaptation of the Licensing Planning Acts.
On 14th December I referred to a deputation which I had received from the brewers, as hon. Members will see at column 1035 of the OFFICIAL REPORT:
I said that it seemed to me there were three possible ways of dealing with the matter. The first was to rely on the existing law. That, I think, was agreed by both sides not to be possible. The second was an adaptation of the Licensing Planning Acts, and the third was the adoption of State management in these new

areas. We spent a very pleasant morning, during which the brewers dealt with their ideas on the necessary adaptation of the Licensing Planning Acts and, at the end of the morning, when we were just breaking up for lunch, I said that I did not suppose that the discreet silence observed on State management was to be taken as implying consent. I gathered from a subsequent letter that I was right in that conclusion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1035.]
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, as far as I can follow, has given them exactly what they asked me for.
On the second occasion they recognised that it had been a good try-on to try to get the licences transferred from the old to the new areas. They failed in that and, therefore, they concentrated on what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is offering them today. I do not think one need say that he inflicted any very great discourtesy on the brewers when, having this Bill in mind, he said that he would not consult them.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: The right hon. Gentleman said at the outset that this Bill ensured that the new towns would only contain tied houses. I do not understand that. Would the right hon. Gentleman point out in what part of the Bill that arises? As far as I can understand it, there is no objection to anybody opening a free house under the Bill.

Mr. Ede: No, of course not. I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Gentleman has practised before licensing justices and knows how many free houses have been applied for within the last few years. The practical working of this Bill means that every new licence that is granted will be for a tied house. If a person wants to put forward a scheme of his own he will have to face the possibility that the united brewers might suggest that his was not quite the house that ought to be built.

Colonel Ralph Clarke: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman one other point?

Mr. Ede: I thought we had arrived at an arrangement whereby there was to be no interruptions. Like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not mind interruptions because, when one is dealing with interruptions, one does not have to worry about one's notes. If the hon. and gallant Member wishes to ask a question, I will give way.

Colonel Clarke: What will be the position of existing independent public houses in these new towns? I have in my hand a letter from the owner of one of these houses. Surely they are exceptions to the rule he has laid down that there will be nothing except tied houses. I know it was intended that they should be nationalised, but if nationalisation is done away with there is continued trade.

Mr. Ede: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should listen before he asks questions. I was dealing with new licences and it by no means follows—

Colonel Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman said, "Every house will be a tied house."

Mr. Ede: Every house erected in future will be a tied house.

Colonel Clarke: That is not what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Ross: It is not what the hon. and gallant Member heard.

Colonel Clarke: is the right hon. Member suggesting that I am misquoting him? He said, "What this Bill will ensure is that every house should be a tied house." Those are his words; I wrote them down.

Mr. Ede: I did not think that the House was under any misapprehension as to what I was saying. If I did say it in the form given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman—well, he can understand now that I am dealing with new houses. I think it is as well that we should recognise from the first that this Bill gives the brewers exactly what they ask for, in the form in which they ask for it. I will leave it at that.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave us some history of the period just preceding the General Election. I took a very close interest in that Election. I read as far as I could, the speeches of prominent leaders of the then Opposition. I noticed particularly those things that were more closely connected with my Department and I did not notice this wonderfully explicit declaration on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues—and the curious thing is that neither did Lord Woolton. That is an astounding thing.
Every morning, the first paper I read is the "Daily Herald," but the first paper my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) reads is the "Morning Advertiser." His political faith is more robust than mine; therefore, he bites his teeth, first thing in the morning, on the Opposition. On 24th November, 1951—a month after the Election—reading the "Morning Advertiser" at breakfast, he found a statement by Mr. L. R. N. Percey, Secretary of the Licensed Victuallers' Association that, at a meeting in the Isle of Wight, Lord Woolton had assured him at the time of the General Election that the Conservative Party, if returned, would repeal certain provisions of the Licensing Act in order to bring new town areas into line with the licensing laws applicable to the rest of the country.
On reading that, my hon. Friend wrote to Lord Woolton on 7th December. He received from Lord Woolton—and in my experience it is something unique in public controversy—a letter dealing with a detailed subject and marked "Private." My hon. Friend knows what is in that letter; Lord Woolton knows what is in that letter; but, clearly, it is not a letter than can be published.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Cannot it be summarised?

Mr. Ede: The letter is in the possession of my hon. Friend. It is his private property. I do not know if he would recognise the summarising of it as honouring the marking on the letter. At any rate, he wrote and expressed the view that the marking of "Private" was unreasonable, and he asked for the removal of the embargo in view of the public statement made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the House of Commons on 6th December. He received a reply on 18th January, which he has handed to me and which I think I ought to read to the House.
This is not the letter marked "Private"; this is the one from which that embargo has been removed, and how nearly it coincides with the original only my hon. Friend and Lord Woolton know.
Lord Woolton says:
I should of course have no objection to your saying publicly that I made no reference to the subject of the new towns licensing legislation in the course of my Election speeches.


The reason for marking my letter 'Private' was that I could not be certain that during the heat of the campaign I had not met Mr. Percey and verbally given the assurance that he attributes to me.
The noble Lord never promised red meat; he only said that he would like to have some. I can only wonder what, when he was conversing with Mr. Percey, he would have liked then. The letter goes on:
In view of your letter, therefore, I asked the Conservative Central Office to have a search through their papers and it transpires that Mr. Percey did, in fact, write to me there on this subject in September last and that a reply was sent to him from the Conservative Central Office. I enclose a copy for your information: it did not issue over my signature but I do, of course, accept responsibility for its contents.
I am afraid this rather alters the picture. I am sorry, but you will I feel sure appreciate how difficult it is to recollect all the many and varied matters which are raised during an Election campaign.
In his speech the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned Lord Woolton specifically as having made a statement. Is there any other statement by Lord Woolton besides the one to which I have referred?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have said what was the reply to the questionnaire which was sent to all parties. I quoted the replies of all parties, including that of the party opposite, and I said that the reply on behalf of the Conservative Party was given by Lord Woolton. Whether it was issued by him directly or from the staff of the Central Office, it was issued from the Central Office and, as he says, the Chairman takes responsibility for it.

Mr. Ede: He takes the responsibility after the event, but not before. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the difference?"] He can say that he saw the letter and that it was issued on his authorisation; that is taking responsibility before the event. It is quite evident that this letter was never submitted to Lord Woolton. It was an arrangement made by an obscure official in the Conservative Central Office and Mr. Percey, and that is typical of the relationship between the Conservative Central Office and the licensing trade.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: As the right hon Gentleman has gone into private matters, I am sure it would interest the

whole House if he would now tell us how this fared when it came on the agenda of the Party Executive meeting of the Labour Party at Scarborough.

Mr. Ede: I am not on the Party Executive.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: You could have asked.

Mr. Ede: There was no need for me to ask.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: How did it answer the questionnaire?

Mr. Ede: It was not an answer. It merely said that it would be considered. If Lord Woolton's private secretary had sent an acknowledgment saying that he was referring the matter to the Central Office, that would have been precisely the same as the letter to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers. At any rate, quite clearly there was no pledge given by the Labour Party to the licensing trade on this matter.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The right hon. Gentleman is far too old a campaigner to leave the matter there. The party for which he is speaking—and he is speaking from the Front Bench—did not commit themselves on this subject but said, "It is on the agenda of the Party Executive meeting at Scarborough." The House is surely entitled to know whether the Party Executive were contemplating changing their view to the view expressed by us today.

Mr. Ede: I do not agree at all. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has had a distinguished military career. He knows that the last order stands until it is altered; and the last word of the Labour Party on this issue was the Licensing Act of 1949, and as far as I know there has never been any indication by a single member of the party that we were going to depart from it.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Why not say so?

Mr. Follick: Let us get back to Lord Woolton.

Mr. Ede: One gentleman has written to me and said I should endeavour to find out what quid pro quo Lord Woolton receives. I do not know whether the word "quid" was a very appropriate word to use—in its slang, and not in its classical meaning.

Mr. Nicholson: I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to say what he means by that.

Mr. Ede: If we knew who subscribed to Lord Woolton's millions we should not have any grounds for suspicion. It would then be a certainty one way or the other.

Mr. Nicholson: The right hon. Gentleman is implying that Lord Woolton is the sort of person who sells his policy for money.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. John Hay: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that? Will he say?

Mr. Ede: I imply that the Conservative Party has always looked very well after its friends, and one of its biggest friends, all my lifetime, has been the brewing industry.

Mr. Nicholson: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, then the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) must resume his seat.

Mr. Ede: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nicholson: It is the pity the right hon. Gentleman will not give a straight reply. Does he say Lord Woolton is the sort of person who helps to make up a party policy according to the amount he is paid?

Mr. Ede: I think there is reason to believe that the brewers would not be such strong supporters of the Tory Party unless they thought they were going to get value for the support they give.

Mr. Nicholson: rose—

Mr. Ede: We are trying to observe the arrangement which I suggested we should make, following the right hon. and learned Gentleman's appeal. I have no objection to giving way but, owing to an interruption about the qualifications of certain hon. Members to vote in this matter—which was no fault of his—the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to take a very considerable time over his speech. I am anxious not to be compelled to do the same.

Mr. Baxter: At least the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the brewers do not have to contract out.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman is probably both a historian and a prophet. When one thinks of the circumstances in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman revealed to the House that he had made up his mind on this matter—on the last day before the Christmas Recess, when no statement could be obtained from the Government about their intentions towards the education services—it is surprising. Taking Question No.78— and Oral Questions having stopped at No. 47—the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked that he might make the earth-shattering pronouncement to the House that he proposed to introduce this Bill. It indicates the extent to which the brewing interests not merely control the policies, but also control the timing of the Conservative Party's activities.
I want to deal with the suggestion made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that in some way or other this scheme is better than the scheme in the Act now on the Statute Book. Nothing I have heard from the right hon. and learned Gentleman today has convinced me that the public in the new towns will be better served as a result of this change than they would have been had the Act on the Statute Book remained unaltered. I listened very carefully to what he had to say. During the last year I was in office I received several deputations from the new towns about this matter and all the interest in the new towns in this Measure and all its history concern the existing licences and the existing licensees.
As far as I have been able to trace, in not one of the new towns had they any of the houses to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman paid tribute when he spoke of the improved standard of public houses during the past 30 years. I asked some members of the State Management Committee, including at least one brewer—and I am not sure there were not two—to go round one or two of these towns from where these complaints were coming and to give me their views on the standard of the existing accommodation. The standard as described by them was nothing like that which the right hon. and learned Gentleman described for the new houses which have been built. I do not understand


how under this Measure a number of the old-fashioned, insanitary, inadequate houses are to disappear. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave us no indication with regard to that.
Most of the core of the new towns—that is, the old villages or small towns around which the new towns are planned —have a large number—a large number far in excess of the ordinary ratio now between population and licences—which are distinctly below standard; and all the deputations that I received were concerned not with improving the standard of the houses but in maintaining the licences that were already there.
In coming to deal with the new towns, of which the already existing small towns or villages are the core, one of the things that we had hoped to do, by providing new houses in the parts where the new population was coming, was to be able to remove some of the licences in the existing parts of the areas. I know of nothing under this scheme that will enable this proposal to be carried into effect.
In spite of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, the difficulty that still confronts the new committees that he is setting up is that, if he is confronted with a brewers' strike, a refusal to comply —a hint that was dropped to me at one stage of the proceedings—because they do not like the place where the committees propose to put a house, he cannot himself, now that he has destroyed the State system in these areas, ensure that the houses shall be in the exact places where the new committees say they ought to be. I hope that when we have a reply at the end of the debate we shall hear how the Government propose to deal with that particular problem.
I think that the arrangement that we have, by which there will be disinterested management in these places, is the nearest approach that we have yet been able to make to a sound licensing system. I want to make this quite clear: I have never myself believed in local option, because I do not think that any majority has the right to deprive the minority of reasonable facilities for refreshment. I know that in that I differ from some of my hon. Friends, but that has always been my belief.
If we are to allow licensing, it does seem to me that then we should try to

ensure that management is not interested in an undue sale of a commodity which, if taken in undue quantities, may have a harmful effect not only on the person concerned but on the social life of the neighbourhood; and I know of no other way to ensure that than the system of State management which has been tried out in Carlisle.
I know that it was suggested at the time of the Act of 1949 that a good many limitations were imposed on the Carlisle houses. Most of them were quite false accusations. There was an accusation, for instance, that darts were not allowed. As a matter of fact, a darts league exists in Carlisle, and proof of its existence is that I was asked to become its president and to present a cup. When I was considering the matter I left office, and I can only hope that it is now receiving favourable consideration.
But I made it quite clear during the passing of the Act that we did not intend to have a monopoly in the new towns, any more than there is a monopoly in the Carlisle area. What we did intend to have was a scheme by which we could be assured that the houses would be placed where the needs of the district indicate they should be, and that they should be conducted in circumstances which would make them on every occasion an asset to the neighbourhood.
The habits of our people underwent a very remarkable change in the first part of this century down to about three or four years ago, and drunkenness had declined very considerably; but two years ago I had to face a very alarming series of reports from all over the country which indicated that drunkenness was again becoming a problem to be dealt with in some areas. At any rate, although the figures were still much below what they used to be, there was a very regrettable trend the wrong way.
I must say I have not yet found—though I tried to find it when I was in office—any reasonable explanation why that trend should have occurred. I think that, to some extent, it is due to the fact that the Churches and temperance societies believed that they had won the battle, and had retired from the conflict. As my lion Friend the Member for Ealing, North, knows, when I received a deputation from the Churches,


who seemed to think it my duty to promote temperance in the country, I told them quite frankly that, compared with the later years of the 19th century, when I was a lad, they had very considerably fallen down on the task that they then believed they ought to have.
But I have been somewhat shaken from too dogmatic a view of that matter by reading what was said by the late Sir Edgar Sanders in 1933, when speaking as Director of the Brewers' Society to a trade audience. He said:
We want to get the beer drinking habit instilled into thousands—almost millions—of young men who do not at present know the taste of beer. These young men, if they start with what beer they can afford today, as they grow up will afford better beers to the greater advantage of the brewing industry.
I would like to say not only to the House but to the Churches that they can now see the working out of that policy, and I believe that in combating that tendency, the State management system, where there is no inducement to make undue profit or to force undue sales, is a reasonable way in which to carry on the steady sobering of the people that took place during the first half of this century.

Mr. John MacLeod: The right hon. Gentleman said there was no monopoly in the Carlisle district. Surely nobody can get a new licence in that area unless it is State controlled.

Mr. Ede: New licences can be obtained.

Mr. MacLeod: But they are State controlled.

Mr. Peter Remnant: There is no other licence but those under State management.

Mr. Ede: Yes, there are.

Mr. Remnant: Not in Carlisle.

Mr. Ede: Oh, yes, there are.

Mr. Remnant: Nonsense.

Mr. Ede: One is called "The Crown and Mitre" and the other is called "The County."

Mr. Remnant: Hotel licences.

Mr. Ede: They have bars, just the same as other hotels. I am quite sure that the Home Secretary, who says he has read my speeches made during the passage of the Bill, will know that I made it quite clear that State management was not to have a monopoly in these areas.

Mr. James Glanville: rose—

Mr. Ede: In fact, during my negotiations—

Mr. Robson Brown: On a point of order. Is it in order for two Members to be on their feet at the same time?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We like only one Member on his feet at one time.

Mr. Ede: I want to make this quite clear. I do not believe that it should be possible in a State management district for there to be a monopoly of houses in the possession of the State management committee. I believed that the proper thing to do was to have houses that were used mainly for local consumption—

Mr. Glanville: On a point of order. With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as I may not be able to take part in this debate and follow on my dear old friend the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), as I have another meeting to attend, might I ask my right hon. Friend if he would stress the importance of the Working Men's Club and Institute Union. We have a brewery of our own. We brew our own beer; we do not buy beer from anybody else.

Mr. Ede: I have been an affiliated member of the Club and Institute Union for 50 years, and I think my hon. Friend can rest assured that, as far as I am concerned, they have my best wishes.
It was always contemplated that in these areas there would be some houses of a sufficiently high standard which would be left to private enterprise and carried on by them. But in my view it is essential, when we have these new populations springing up, and if we are to get the licensed places where they ought to be—and that includes removing those that have become redundant or whose


houses are below standard—that it should be undertaken by bodies that have the widest possible range of interests.
That was why, not merely the licensing justices and development corporations, but other interests in the area, including the trade, the Churches, and various social organisations, should be represented on the committee that we established. I have heard nothing from the Home Secretary which makes me think that what he proposes will enable this work to be carried on with the same efficiency, with the same certainty of producing good results, as the scheme that we embodied in our Act.
For that reason, I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add: "upon this day six months."

5.25 p.m.

Viscountess Davidson: As one who represents a new town very much affected by this Bill, I am very glad of the opportunity of saying a few words in its support. First, I wish to say a word or two on the question of a mandate. A great deal has been said this afternoon, and before the debate, as to whether our party had or had not a mandate. I can assure the House that we stated quite clearly that if we were returned to power we would introduce a Bill on these lines. On many occasions in my own constituency, where it was a matter of great interest, during the Election, I stated it quite definitely, and I heard scarcely a word of protest. There was no doubt at all about my attitude in the matter.
On the question of support coming from the brewers, I was never approached by the brewers at all. But I was approached by hundreds of ordinary men and women who were extremely perturbed at what was happening. They were not necessarily the kind of people who visited licensed houses, but they did not want the State interfering or existing laws changed. Certainly, both they and I resented the fact that, although the former Home Secretary treated us with great politeness, he did not appear to be very interested in our views.
I am not sure, but I do not think he really consulted the views of local authorities or the new town corporations. He set up an advisory committee, but as

far as I could gather very little attention was paid to their advice. I went with a deputation to the former Home Secretary and I must confess that my recollection of what took place at that meeting does not altogether agree with his. However, perhaps we can discuss that another time.
The effect of his proposals would have been to deprive the new towns corporations of control over a very important sector of those new towns for which they are responsible by statute, and also of a potential source of revenue. This was pointed out in the Second Annual Report of the Hemel Hempstead Corporation, who wrote in April, 1949:
By the licensing Bill now before Parliament the Corporation's influence in the social sphere will be curtailed; perhaps also its financial prospect injured.
The proposal to introduce State management was an embarrassment to the new towns corporations on planning grounds, and it was unwelcome to other interests. It is very seldom that a Government decision commends itself to all parties concerned, but in this case the decision to repeal the Part I provisions of the Licensing Act, 1949, is generally approved.
I emphasised that the opposition to State management comes from the ordinary men and women, who still believe in freedom of choice, and that competition produces better service. They represent the vast majority, as compared with the small but ardent minority who claim to know best what other people should want. The superimposing of a new town on an old long-established borough such as Hemel Hempstead is fraught with difficulties, and it is only when one happens to be in the position of the representative Member of Parliament that one appreciates quite what sufferings, distress, anxieties and problems arise out of it.
We are solving those problems; we shall, I hope, solve them satisfactorily; but only because there has been a great deal of give and take, and understanding of, and sympathy with, the problems of both the new townspeople and the new corporation and the old townspeople and the old town authorities. But I can assure the House that when my constituents heard that the public houses were to be taken over by the State, they felt that this was something which they


could not possibly accept. I can also assure the Home Secretary that my constituents and I are grateful to him for introducing this Bill. It removes at least one of our real anxieties, and it will be welcomed both in old Hemel Hempstead and in the new town.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I think that, at any rate, the brewers may be congratulated on one thing, that they have made their tied houses so unattractive that, obviously, the hon. Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) has never entered one. We know her to be one of the most sincere of all Members in the House, and she certainly would not have thought that her constituents could have obtained any freedom of choice had she ever gone into a tied public house and ordered a glass of beer, because she would have been immediately told, "It doesn't matter what you think; it is what our brewers think that matters." In practice, her speech invites her constituents to accept a type of beer of which they will have no choice whatever in deciding.
If she still believes in freedom, perhaps she will join with me a little later when we put down an Amendment to make certain, in the event of the Second Reading of the Bill being carried tonight—if it is—it will be carried by the votes of some hon. Members opposite who will have a direct interest in the matter. In that case we could ease their consciences by the noble Lady and myself joining in an Amendment, quite easy to draft, which will provide that all the houses in the new towns shall be free. In that event, her second point will be met, because this will, of course, secure a far greater revenue to the new towns corporations; it will not all be frittered away on the brewers.
I think that the hon. Lady, in supporting this Measure, showed by her remarks a lack of understanding of it, whereas I am afraid that the Home Secretary understood it all too well, hence the thinness and contradictions of his speech. First, he said, "We must save money, and when the Government came into office we decided to introduce this Measure in order that we might save money." Next, he comes forward and

says, "We must see that the best possible public house system is available in the new towns to attract people to them." If, in fact, to invest in a public house in a new town were to involve a serious loss, why does he suppose that the brewers would do it?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that he had no consultation with them. In other words, he is proposing that there shall be no public houses in the new towns, if what he says is correct. He is not asking the brewers to agree to build new houses where they will secure a loss, and he comes to the Despatch Box and says, "The Government cannot do it because they are certain of a loss." What is his case? It is "to save money"—his very words, which I took down. Why should not the Government make a profitable investment; or is it the theory of the party opposite today that that would be so contrary to their principles of public life that it should not be permitted even in the case of beer?
His next point is that good public houses should be available. The one thing that will happen in the new towns is that people will come from all over the countryside to them, and will come with certain drinking habits, good or evil as they may be, and will wish for certain beers. If he does not believe that to be so, let him look at the protests continually made in Margate by Conservatives against the tied house system there, which, they say, puts off visitors who are looking for a particular kind of beer. If we are going to put off visitors looking for a certain kind of beer, then, to use an expression which occasionally falls from the lips of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, a fortiori we put off people from coming to live in the area.
What are these good houses going to be? The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows his solution, I hope, and I shall show him from something which he said just now and something he said earlier when he was dealing with the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Bill. He knows perfectly well that every one of these houses will be a tied house. What sort of safeguards are we to have? Are we to have utilisers in these new houses? Perhaps he feels that if he does away with the utility scheme, it is only fair to give the new towns the use of the utiliser. He knows what it is, I am sure. Speaking on the


Customs and Excise Bill, I described it in the words of Lord Balfour of Burleigh. So now I need only say briefly that it is a machine for filtering the overspill, spittle and waste and putting it back into the beer. On that occasion I was dealing with the very limited point as to whether the addition of a proportion of spittle to the beer was or was not adulteration. Now I may ask generally: Are we to have the utiliser in the new towns? We know that the utiliser was in constant use in the inter-war years, but has the right hon. and learned Gentleman made any inquiries from the brewers as to whether they have stopped using it?
Perhaps it would be a good thing to have the utiliser because, at least, it is fair to the utiliser to say that it gives everybody a certain share of the spittle and waste beer. For every pint, one only gets one-eleventh of spittle and waste beer; but there are, of course, a great many brewers who are in favour of the sale of waste. They do not do it in anything like as scientific a way as the machine. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the good service given by the brewer. Did he see the report of the Sanitary Inspectors' Conference at Bath? They said, in 1950, that 29 of the 156 licensed premises in that town were found to be re-selling to customers drippings from beer taps, and overspill from glasses. Let us know the Government's policy on the utiliser.
May I say a word about what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said about temperance? I think that both sides of the House are agreed that the one thing that we should try to do is to encourage the sale of food and the sale of non-intoxicants in public houses. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary knows, as well as I do, because the Government are always adopting his policy in everything else, that, as Lord Balfour of Burleigh said, the only object of a tied house is to sell more and more drink. How can it be otherwise if the Home Secretary installs in his new towns tied houses whose rent is directly proportion-able to the amount of drink which is supplied? These houses are managed by very able, efficient and distinguished businessmen, many of them sitting behind him today. They are obviously going to see that the things that are sold are

not things which involve no profit to them by way of wet rent.
Let me suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman a very simple test. Let him go into a tied house of Messrs. Charringtons and ask for a bottle of lemonade. Then let him measure how much he gets, and ask for a bottle of their beer. He will find that he has to pay only one halfpenny less for the lemonade than he has to pay for the beer. Why is that? Because the people he is going to put in the new houses are charged, first of all, a royalty on any lemonade they are allowed to sell and they put up the price of lemonade. Why? Because they want to discourage its sale.

Mr. Baxter: Quite right. It is a terrible drink.

Mr. Bing: That is a point of view, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman should realise that his own problem is an equally difficult one, because soda water, which I believe is his favourite beverage, is similarly treated despite the fact that Sir Stafford Cripps removed the tax from it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that this was no monopoly. I do not know whether he has changed his views about monopoly, but his party issued a guide to the General Election in 1950 and they included in it a section on monopoly. Possibly, in the same way as it has been alleged in the debate, Lord Woolton's name has been used without authority. The Conservative Central Office may have written the right hon. and learned Gentleman's name against what they said about monopoly.
The Conservative Party's Election Campaign Guide says:
Monopoly, by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe. Published by the Conservative Central Office, —A monopoly exists when a person, or a group of persons acting together, has the power to influence prices in conformity with his own wishes.
Now that the Government have decided not to build any schools at all I do not suppose they will build four or five new public houses in each of the new towns. In that case, even on their scale of priorities, there must be only one new public house to every new town before they get on to their other plans for putting up a few schools, and, if that house is tied, the price of everything one can get falls


within the right hon. and learned Gentleman's definition.
The Guide goes further than that. I shall not read the whole passage, because it must be obvious that hon. Members opposite are familiar with it. However, I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that his argument was that at that moment the Monopolies Commission was not wide enough to deal with the abuses. Are we now to have a plan from him to widen it so that we can submit to it the monopoly of the brewers? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
The monopolies can, however, go some way to safeguarding themselves by erecting artificial barriers to would-be competitors.
Is not that exactly what he is inviting them to do in the new towns?
We know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has a very sincere interest in this matter. He opened his opposition to the New Towns Bill by referring to what he regarded as the inalienable heritage of every Englishmen —the right to choose his own beer. In which of the houses which he will set up in the new towns will that right be exercisable? Will he give us the case of one tenant who has any guarantee that if he tried to allow an Englishman to exercise his inalienable right he would not lose his house and his home the next day?
The House is interested to know why the Bill was introduced. We understand from Lord Woolton's correspondence that he regarded it as a matter of such unimportance that he could not remember whether he had given a pledge on it or not. That does not seem, at first sight, a reason for giving the Bill priority over all the other important Measures. The present Government said, "Let us have two months' holiday to think over what we shall introduce." What did they introduce? They introduced this contentious Measure, which will take a week or so in Committee, at a time when they had said that all building of schools must be at a standstill. Does that mean that there was great urgency that the school building scheme should be stopped to permit the building of public houses not for the State, but for the private brewers and that, therefore, the Bill could not wait?
What about the question of mandate? It is an interesting one. In a sense, the

right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct. He got his dates a little wrong. In 1950 the Conservative Party tried to secure a mandate in this matter. I have here only the popular edition of the Conservative Party's Guide to the General Election, 1950. It was all I could afford. It cost 7s. 6d. What the less popular one cost I do not know. I take it that this edition is sufficiently full. In the index were 10 matters dealing with licensing to which the attention of candidates was directed. In view of the attitude of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it is appropriate that "licensing" follows immediately after "liberty."
For the General Election of 1951 something was issued which could be purchased by members of the Conservative Party for 3s. There was no mention of the mandate in that booklet.

Mr. R. Maudling: Was not the second document a supplement to the first?

Mr. Bing: But there was no mention of it in the first one either. This one was specially prepared for the General Election and I thought it fairer to refer to it than to make a point out of the other more general document produced at an earlier stage.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's party attempted to get a mandate for this in 1950, but did not secure it. No doubt they thought they would not get a mandate for it in 1951 and, therefore, did not put the matter forward. That does not seem a particularly good reason for introducing the Bill. However, let us suppose that the right hon. and learned Gentleman genuinely considered that he was fighting the 1951 campaign by fighting the battles of 1950 all over again.
Six reasons were put forward in the Campaign Guide why the Licensing Bill of 1949 should be opposed, and in each case this Bill fails to carry out the reasons put forward by the Conservative Party in their propaganda. There was one misapprehension. They said that the Bill extended to an adjacent area. They then noticed that an Amendment proposed by themselves had been accepted and that this objection no longer applied.
They went on to say:
There is no sign at all that the public want this extension of State ownership and


the residents of the new towns are to be given no opportunity of expressing their views on the matter.
Where is there in the Bill any opportunity for the people coming to the new towns to choose the type of public house that they would like? The next point:
The State will have the power to enforce a complete monopoly in these areas, as a result of which the residents will have no effective freedom of choice.
How does the Bill ensure freedom of choice? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give me an undertaking now that he will favourably consider an Amendment to provide for the same provisions as these points which the Conservative Party set out in their propaganda?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not agree with the Amendment that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. I believe that we get freedom of choice by allowing different brewers to come in with different beers. That gives the freedom of choice, which I still stand by, and the inalienable heritage, in which I still believe.

Mr. Bing: In other words, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is planning not to build in these new towns one public house because there would be no freedom, but is planning to build three or four public houses.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Before he makes that point again, which is a very bad point, the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to look at the number of licences already existing in the new towns. He will find that they extend to considerable numbers.

Mr. G. Lindgren: Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows circumstances vary from town to town. There are certain instances where there are a large number of licences existing, but in a number of towns there are no licences or very few licences.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have gone into this and I cannot recall any town where there are no licences. There are some where licences might be comparatively few; there are others, if my recollection is right, where there are something between 40 and 50.

Mr. Bing: The argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is clear. He

states that the object of the Bill is to enable public houses to be built in areas where there are already 40 or 50; otherwise, there will be no freedom of choice. I leave the House to judge the issue. This Guide also says that the scheme
creates a breach on a large scale in the system of licensing by the Justices.
So good, but does the right hon. and learned Gentleman believe that?
This measure empowers the State to enter into any and every aspect of catering trade, licensed and unlicensed, to run any kind of entertainment provided there is a snack bar attached and to engage in the actual manufacture of beer and the bottling, etc., of intoxicating liquor of all kinds and the manufacture of table waters.
Very good, but, of course, the State brewery is not in the new towns; it is in Carlisle, and if that is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's quarrel why are we not doing away with the old State licensing district. Why not hand this brewery back to private enterprise? If that is the plan this Bill has nothing whatever to do with that particular issue.
Let me now come to the final point:
It is impossible, without official permission, to start any new registered club in the new towns. This particularly affects the British Legion, Working Men's Clubs and the Institute Unions.
A great many of us are in favour of properly conducted clubs, but a case exists where a brewery closed down the public house, obtained compensation for redundancy, and opened it again as a proprietary club with the original licensee as steward. I do not suggest that this is a widespread evil. The Royal Commission of 1931 went into it, and found that it occurred in only 30 or 40 cases. But that is the sort of thing, surely, that the Government would not want to go on in the new towns or, indeed, in the old towns, and that seems to me to be a reasonable provision.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to do something effective for the British Legion and for the working men's clubs let him make one suggestion which is far better than this Bill. He should persuade his hon. Friends, who sit behind him and who have such interest in the brewery trade, not to tie land so that clubs cannot be opened. I have among my correspondence a letter from a British Legion branch in Birmingham, which is not able to open a British Legion club anywhere because


all the land is tied by the brewers so that they cannot build anywhere. That is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends do for the returned soldiers. So much for all this talk about the British Legion.
What about the working men's clubs and institutes? Nobody suggests that a respectable body of that sort should be kept out. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman is bringing in again the very people who tried to squeeze these clubs out before by refusing to serve them. They had powers to threaten them continually, and never in any case would they disclose to the pubs the strength of the beer which they sold to them.
I have detained the House a little too long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Carry on."] There are, however, just a few more points I should like to put. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that this Bill was following the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Act. That was a Measure which was founded on the recommendations of the Morris Committee. Lady Astor said of this body that there were on it 13 representatives of the drink trade and none of the Churches. I think that was carrying the thing a little too far. The Committee was appointed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), and he even, under the pressure of the Coalition, would not have done a thing like that. That was a typical piece of Conservative extravagance.
It is quite true that the liquor interests outweighed the Churches by about four to one, and why not, because they were engaged on various technical approaches to the matter, and perhaps that was the reason why a Committee of that sort was set up. Of course, this Bill does not follow their recommendations, and in one very significant fashion it has even departed from the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Act. At the instance of the strange combination of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor), Sir Alan Herbert and Lady Astor there was inserted a subsection which is now part of Section 4 of this Act. It laid down that food should be provided. When one comes to look at the wording of this Bill, one sees that it is almost similar except that the word "food" is left out. Is that just by accident? Is that just one of those little

slips, or is it because, in fact, a great number of public houses do not provide any food at all?
I do not know what the figures are. It is very difficult to get them accurately, but so far as I can marry two sets of statistics together, the position is that out of about 64,000 regular public houses in Great Britain some 30,000 sell food while there are some 240,000 catering establishments without a licence of any sort. What my right hon. Friend was trying to do in this Act was to see that in the new towns the licensed victualler really was a licensed victualler, a man who supplied victuals and who provided for comfort and was not a mere purveyor of drink. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just handed it all back to the brewer.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that there is no secret deal of any sort. Then let us have some explanation of how this Bill comes on now. What is the urgency if there is nothing behind it? Why should the first Measure, after four months of thinking by the Government, be something which, on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own showing, cannot affect the position at the moment because no building is to take place? Why does it come on now, and why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman give Parliamentary time to it in this way? Why has Parliamentary time to be occupied in this way?
We are in a serious situation. Nobody doubts the gravity of the position. This House ought to be occupied in discussing the issues which matter—the issues of peace and war, the issue of trade, the issue of the economic situation. To accommodate such a Bill as this the Export Guarantees Bill is being taken after 10 o'clock and probably in the small hours of the morning. That is the sort of priority which is being given. After four months of thinking the only thought which emerges from the Conservative mind is, "What can we do for the brewers?"
It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that there is no evidence of any sort of conspiracy. I shall ask him one question on that. Does he think—there was some comment on it—that the Prime Minister tells the


truth? There was some objection yesterday when it was suggested that he did not. If the Prime Minister is telling the truth, then in the years before the 1914–18 war the party opposite was tied to the brewers. Have they changed? If not, what other explanation is there for the Bill?
We know that the power of the trade was built on one Section of the Licensing Act, 1904. It is their sheet anchor. Today, we know how that Section was produced. It was built up in one of those conversations which Lord Woolton appreciates. I will conclude my speech by reading a report of one of those conversations, connected with this last great Measure to help the brewers. The present Bill is built on the same principle. In their report Mr. Roach, General Secretary of the National Trade Defence Association, the very body to which Lord Woolton addressed his letter, said:
With regard to the Licensing Act, 1904, he could safely say that a considerable amount of the good that the trade was able to do in passing that was due to the personal acquaintance that happened to exist between one or two of their officials and one or two Members of the Government…He could say this, that the Clause which was the most important, and which did the most good, was drafted in the office in which he sat.
This may not be the case today. The Conservative Party may have changed since those times, but if it has somebody on the Government Front Bench will have to produce a far better excuse for introducing this Measure at this date than we have so far heard.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. R. Maudling: The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has shown his usual vigour and wit in pursuing his vendetta against the brewers. If ever I wished the hon. and learned Gentleman ill—and I do not think I ever would—I should wish him to spend a holiday standing drinks to a brewery director in a tied house in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Bing: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but in justice to Northern Ireland I must point out that there are no tied houses there. The licensed victuallers own their own brewery and do very well from it. If I wanted to buy a brewery director drinks, I should have to do it in an entirely free house.

Mr. Maudling: As least I have achieved something if I have persuaded the hon. and learned Member to say a good word for Northern Ireland.
As for his argument, I cannot follow the logic that there can be no freedom of choice in the new towns unless there is a complete range of supplies from every brewery in the country. He made a reference to people coming from all over the country to the new towns, with individual tastes for the beers of various districts. He implied that there could be no freedom of choice unless every brand was there available in every public house. Would every brand of all the brewers in the country be available to residents of new towns under State management? Of course it would not.

Mr. Lindgren: I happen to be one of the few hon. Members who are consumers in a new town. I live in Welwyn. The only beer I can buy in Welwyn is Whitbread's. Where is my freedom of choice?

Mr. Maudling: I am coming to that point. I first want to declare my interest in this matter, but not a financial interest. I have no pecuniary interest in the beer or wine and spirit business; but my interests are two. First of all, my constituency contains the new town of Hatfield. It also adjoins Welwyn. Secondly, I make it my duty, a very pleasant duty, to visit the public houses in the district. I live myself in the Hatfield district. I remember encountering the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) playing a very lively game of bar billiards in a public house there. I cannot remember what precise brew we were drinking, but I remember we found it quite enjoyable. It may be that the hon. Gentleman had to travel a long way to get there, but he seemed to find it worth while.
I am interested in the Bill because I live in a new town. I am convinced that the people who live there do not want to see State management in the new town of Hatfield. The wishes of the people who live in the district are, after all, rather important. There may be a certain amount of exaggeration in this, but it has been suggested that if there were State management the "Bull and Butcher" would become the "Bill and Minister" and that instead of saying "bung-ho" we should have to say "Bing-ho." Now


let me come to the question of the mandate, about which we have heard a good deal.

Mr. Norman Smith: I suggest that what the public want is the free house and not the tied house, and that if the hon. Gentleman were really considering the public interest he would demand that free houses be provided and not brewers' tied houses.

Mr. Maudling: I will explain that point later. Now I am coming to the question of the mandate, about which a great deal of comment has been made, and will probably still be made, in the debate.
I have been reading the debate of 14th December, 1948, which has been referred to, and in which the then Lord President of the Council dealt with the question of the mandate in words which bear repeating. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) said:
First of all, the question of the mandate. I am not going to accept the argument that everything that every Government does has to be justified by specific electoral declaration or mandate. This matter arose, incidentally, in relation to new towns.…It really is an incidental matter, a by-product of the new towns policy, as to how the licensed premises should be dealt with. Therefore, the question of a specific mandate does not arise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1133.]
I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said on that matter.

Mr. Woodburn: It does not logically follow, if that arose incidentally to new town legislation, that this legislation is arising incidentally to anything.

Mr. Maudling: Of course it does. Obviously the way public houses are run and managed is incidental to the new towns, and it is just as incidental to that development to have this type of legislation as to have the type of legislation presented by the previous Administration.
I would refer to one further point. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) made a reference earlier—I am very sorry that he is not in his place now —which I think was rather unworthy of him, about what goes on and went on between the brewing industry and the Conservative Party before the last General Election. I do not want to enter into the major question of the effect of

the brewers on the Conservative Party. We have had those bogeys for many years and may have them again. But I want to know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman meant by referring to the relationship of officials of the Central Office of the Conservative Party with the licensed victuallers.
The implication of what the right hon. Gentleman said was clear. I happen to have been an official at the Central Office, and I know the standards which are maintained at the central offices of all political parties. I should like to know what was meant by the imputation which appeared to be made by the right hon. Gentleman. The position was made perfectly clear in another place by the right hon. and noble Lord who was opposing the 1949 Bill. He said, at the time of the passage of the 1949 Bill, that we intended to repeal it. That was our policy thereafter. Anyone inquiring for our policy from the Conservative Party and at the Central Office would be told perfectly clearly that our policy was to repeal the Act.
The next thing I want to do is to consider the argument for State trading in the new towns. So far as I can see, the arguments divide themselves into two. First, there is the question of the distribution of licences. It has been argued from the other side of the House that it is impossible to distribute licences through licensing justices in the new towns. As far as I follow it, the basis of that argument is: What will happen if the brewers do not apply to establish new houses? Now, we have been told all the time that it will be immensely profitable to the brewers to establish new houses. In those circumstances why is there any fear that there should be a failure on the part of the brewers to come forward and apply for licences?

Mr. Bing: It arose from a remark made by the Home Secretary, who said that if this money were spent by the Government there would be a loss. In those circumstances we were asking from this side of the House how there would be any public houses at all. If the Home Secretary was wrong, then the argument is on the other foot.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hope my hon. and learned Friend will allow me to explain. I never said there would be a loss. I said that the money would be


spent by the Government in acquiring existing premises. I said that if the policy of the late Government were followed it would mean that over £1 million would be spent this year on acquiring half the existing premises, and presumably rather more than that amount would appear in next year's Estimates. In other words, I was giving the additional expenditure by the Government, and I said nothing about anyone making a loss.

Mr. Bing: I hesitate to conduct a private argument with the Home Secretary in the middle of another hon. Gentleman's speech, but may I say that if they acquired the houses, then the balance-sheet of the Government would be the same because they would have that much less money but that much more profit unless they bought them at an excessive figure.

Mr. Maudling: But does it not occur to the hon. and learned Member that houses requisitioned by the State might show a loss rather than a profit? [HON. MEMBERS: "Carlisle."] I will come to the question of profits and losses at Carlisle in a moment. The point I was making was not relevant to the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch. I was trying to reply to the speech of his right hon. Friend who, I thought, implied that there might be a refusal on the part of the brewers to apply for licences. I was saying that I could not understand why, if it is so profitable for brewers to have these licences, there should be a fear that none of them might make such an application.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member should appreciate that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said he was quoting a veiled threat made to him by the brewers that if they did not get the sites in the new towns that they wanted, they would not go into the new towns.

Mr. Maudling: I know the right hon. Gentleman said he was quoting a veiled threat, but I do not for a moment believe that any such threat would be carried out. Why should anyone carry out a threat to his own great pecuniary detriment? I do not follow that.
The only remaining argument for State management can be dealt with by this question: Is it the object of the person managing and running a public house to

increase the amount of beer sold or to decrease it? Let us have no humbug on this question. Should a manager or a licensee running a public house try to increase or decrease his sales? We should be clear in our minds what he should decide. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sales of what?"] Of everything he provides, principally beer because, strangely enough, it is beer which people go to buy in public houses. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite are a little inconsistent in this matter. I will refer again to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South in 1948, when he said:
While the nation will not go teetotal in these new towns, nevertheless the probability is that the amount of alcohol consumed will diminish, and I think that that is a perfectly legitimate purpose of social policy in this regard.
The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that the establishment of State management will reduce consumption, which is hardly a good argument for the excellence of State beer or the efficiency of State management. If you have good beer and pleasant public houses, you normally get more custom.
Surely the job of anyone running a public house is to make it as pleasant and attractive and as congenial a place as he can. If he does so, he will get more custom. If he wants to reduce his custom he can do it by making his public house unattractive. Which is the argument that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want to put forward? Do they want State managements to reduce consumption by making public houses unattractive or do they want more beer to be consumed? They cannot simultaneously maintain both points of view.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt? If he is quoting the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) he ought to quote the sentence immediately before what he said, which was—
…it is a legitimate ambition and legitimate aim of social policy that the assistance of State management houses and of disinterested management should lead to absence of the pushing of alcoholic liquors, which might otherwise take place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1130.]
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let us know whether he is or is not in favour of the pushing of alcoholic liquors?

Mr. Maudling: I do not know what the hon. and learned Member means by "pushing." I have done a certain number of things to alcoholic liquor, including pushing it down, or whatever the phrase is. Does he think that the average publican tries to persuade the person coming into his public house to have another one? [An HON. MEMBER: "Of course he does."] Hon. Members who put forward that point of view either have no experience or so much prejudice that it blinds their judgment. The fact is that if you go into the ordinary public house, be it tied or free, the publican tries to serve you with what you ask for and, if he is a good publican, tries to make his public house as attractive as he can. That seems to me to be the right thing for a good publican to do.
I want to come once again to the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch whose most interesting pamphlet on the subject of "Setting the Pubs Free" I have just been reading. I think he falls into the confusion of not knowing whether he wants the sales of beer to rise or fall. He criticises the brewers for pushing the sales of beer and at the same time criticises them for keeping the price of beer too high. If he wants the price of beer to come down, they will sell more beer. Does he want cheaper beer and more consumption, or dearer beer and less consumption?

Mr. Bing: If the hon. Member is inviting an interruption, I am only too willing to accede to his request. I have always advocated that the charging of what is elegantly known in the trade as a "wet" rent is a deliberate incentive to the sale of liquor because the rent which the brewer derives from his property is directly proportionate to the amount of beer sold. If the hon. Gentleman has read my pamphlet with the attention which I am sure he feels it deserves, he will have seen that I quote an actual letter from a public house—"The Malvern" in Dover—where the licensee was removed because the sales of his beer fell. That threat hangs over the head of every publican.

Mr. Maudling: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered my point that either he wants to see higher prices of beer leading to smaller sales or lower prices leading to greater sales.
I now pass to my next point which is a fundamental one on the question of freedom of choice. When the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch gets on to that question, he and other hon. Members opposite get most out of touch with reality. One cannot interpret freedom of choice in these matters in terms of having every variety of beer, or even large numbers of different kinds of beer, available in every public house. The freedom of choice which is available to the public is the freedom to go to another public house if one does not like the beer in the existing one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I might issue an invitation to hon. Members to come to the new town of Hatfield and see the existing facilities, which are very good, offering a wide range of excellent beers. It is because that freedom of choice would be restricted that we who live in the areas of the new towns are convinced that the 1949 Act, which this Measure is designed to repeal, was a thoroughly bad Act.
There are three fundamental reasons why the Bill deserves a Second Reading. First, it is a matter of principle. It is a matter of principle that no economic activity should be carried on by the State if it can be satisfactorily carried on by private enterprise. It is for the nationalisers to make the case, and they have utterly failed to do so.
Second, the Bill should be supported because it restores to the local justices and to the development corporations powers that should never have been taken away from them. The justices locally know their job and understand the district. They are the best qualified people to deal with this matter. The development corporations, which, I believe, were not consulted at all and were, certainly to my knowledge, distressed and upset when it happened, should not have been deprived of the right if necessary to take their share and maintain their control over licensed premises.
Finally, and most important of all, there is the question of local public opinion. I am quite convinced that there is no substantial public opinion in any of the districts concerned that demands State management of the public houses in the new towns. It is because this public opinion is the most important consideration of all that I particularly ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I hesitate to come into this rather fluid argument about the qualities of beer, but that is not the main question of the Bill. I also apologise to those who belong to south of the Border if I introduce some elements which are rather strange to them and which belong to the north of the Border. For that reason, I say to the Secretary of State for Scotland that there should have been a separate Bill for Scotland.
When hon. Members who are now on the Government side were sitting on this side of the House, they showed a great passion on every occasion to have separate Bills for Scotland. It may be argued that we did not have a separate Bill when we introduced the Licensing Act. That is no argument in this case, however, for at that time the two Secretaries of State were jointly responsible for State management districts and as the then Bill dealt with State management districts, obviously they could not be separated in a Bill covering the whole of Great Britain.
In the present case, the Government have eliminated from the Bill the one element that made it necessary to have a single Bill, and there could have been two Bills. It takes two and a half pages of a 10-page Bill for an application Clause to make the Bill apply to Scotland. The very fact that I have to intervene in a debate which is quite clearly discussing matters which are peculiar to south of the Border, is an indication that it would have been far better had the Scottish Members been discussing their business in their own Committee and the English Members left to deal with their own Bill.
I see no reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman should not have left Scotland out of the Bill altogether. All the arguments that have been given in support of introducing the Bill apply to English conditions, and not to Scottish conditions. We in Scotland would have been quite pleased had there been no Bill at all. I should be very surprised if the Secretary of State could show any instance where there has been the slightest demand from Scotland—even from the drink trade—for the Bill.
The Scottish attitude to drink and to the drink trade is quite different from the attitude south of the Border. One of

the Joint Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland—the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith)—when making the case for the Opposition against the previous Bill, gave as his reason his nostalgia for the atmosphere of the old English inn. That may be understandable, but it was noticeable that he never mentioned the atmosphere of the Scottish public house. That atmosphere, as most people who have visited Scottish public houses know, consists of smoke, fumes, noise and sawdust. The English inn may have the smell of violets, but the conditions in a great many Scottish public houses may be said to reek of nothing but drink.
The Scottish houses afford an early example of time and motion study, so that drink can reach the customers' lips with the least passage of time and the least traversing of space, so that the maximum amount of drink can be consumed in the shortest possible time.

Mr. Maudling: I am not sure of that, not being an expert on Scotland, but is it not a fact that most of the houses in Scotland are free houses, for which the right hon. Member's colleagues are pressing?

Mr. Woodburn: I think that the hon. Member is quite wrong. There is quite a lot of control of the public houses in Scotland by the brewers also.
That does not alter the fact that the atmosphere in Scottish public houses is not a leisurely one, in which people sit and talk with their wives and friends. It is an atmosphere of people standing at the bar, drinking beer and whisky as fast as they can be served. Any respectable woman in Scotland would think twice, if not three or four times, before going into a public house, but I understand that that is not the case in England. At those places which I have visited in England, anybody could go in, whether they were drinking or not people sit around and talk, and men are there with their wives. That could not happen in most of the public houses in Scotland. It must he realised, therefore, that the attitude of people in Scotland to this whole question is quite different, and it would have been far better to have left us out of the Bill altogether.
The Home Secretary quoted the attitude of temperance people who sat on


the various Commissions. I said on the Second Reading of the previous Bill that it was an extremely curious thing that some of our temperance friends took the view that it was wrong to make public houses such that people could go into them without feeling ashamed. In other words, they think that drinking is encouraged by houses which are reputable and into which people can take their friends. That, of course, leads to the perpetuation of the very kind of thing I have been dealing with, but if I were to choose I should say that the conditions I have described tend to degrade the self-respect of people. That does not occur when people go into hotels where people may be taking tea or drinking, where drink does not dominate the situation, and where people are entirely free to do as they like.
Therefore, the intention in new towns was not to establish places with a view to making a profit out of selling the maximum amount of drink. The purpose was to establish a social institution which people could use, which had for its purpose, not the pushing of drink but the providing of facilities where people could have drink if they wanted it and where they could have other services also. All people do not drink—some do, and some do not; and there is no reason why they should not be able to mix in a social atmosphere. Non-drinkers should not be made to feel they are forced to drink by going with their friends into a mere drinking place. Therefore, I differ from some of my temperance friends, and I think it right that we should develop a decent atmosphere.
I come from a constituency where, perhaps, there is centred a greater control over the drink trade than in any other place in the country. One of my constituents controls, I understand, about £65 million of capital in the drink trade. He invited me to go to Oxford to see what a respectable public house could be like. I have not been able to go, but he is heartily ashamed of the conditions which exist in Scotland and of some of the people who run public houses there, and who will not provide conditions where people can go with self-respect.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Surely in his capacity as a Member of

Parliament, the right hon. Member must have had many cases brought to his attention where licence holders are trying to improve conditions but cannot do so because of building restriction.

Mr. Woodburn: I am not condemning everyone who purveys drink. I recognise that many of these people would perhaps copy what is being done in England and there may be building restrictions, but what we are talking about is a century of the drink trade during which that has never been done, although they had the opportunity. We have to take conditions as they are in Scotland.
I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to say who was consulted in Scotland about the introduction of this Bill? Were the Churches consulted? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen this month's edition of "Life and Work." It says:
The Government's decision to reverse the policy of state-management of public-houses and licensed premises in the new towns is an ominous indication of the financial interests at work at high levels.
Some hon. Members resented what my right hon. Friend said about the working of financial interests, but the Church seems to think that is going on. The quotation continues:
The previous legislation was not without its inconsistencies and it had been constructively criticised by the Churches and other public bodies and considerably amended. But it had the great merit of restricting competitive selling of intoxicating liquor in towns which are being planned deliberately as this generation's answer to the shameful conditions which it inherited from last century. Whatever the differences of view we may hold on State control and direction in other spheres, we might well have been agreed on the necessity for the most careful control at this point. If the usual arguments for private enterprise apply here, then this decision is not one which will commend itself to the majority of Christian people.
I notice that one of the presbyteries in the North is also expressing alarm at the reversal of what was done by the last Government. The purpose of the original Bill was to ensure that the nation was spending public money to establish as near as possible ideal towns and it was essential to safeguard them against unlimited exploitation by private persons with no regard to social purposes but who were merely concerned with making the maximum profit. In my view, this Bill fails to do that.
Under existing legislation the Secretary of State is responsible. He can be held responsible for any licences which are established in new towns. Under the earlier licensing laws and existing licensing laws outside new towns, there is judicial control by the licensing courts. Under this Bill neither of those safeguards applies—neither control by the Secretary of State nor control by the licensing courts. Clause 2 sets up a committee and once the committee is established it does not appear to be responsible to anyone and does not appear to have to meet in public. It is supposed to determine the distribution of places where licences will be held, and I am not clear whether there is any limitation of the number of houses which can be established. That may just mean a district, and the question is how many licences can be established in the so-called "places" in which this permission is given. I am not sure whether there is a definition of places in the Bill, or not.
The Bill also introduces objectionable new principles. Until now an applicant has had to prove the need for a new licence before a licensing court. The onus was on the person wanting the licence to show a need for it, but under the Bill—if I read it correctly—there is no longer any obligation on the person applying to show any need. The onus is transferred from the person applying for a licence to people objecting to the granting of the licence. They are given permission to sustain their objections to the licence.
I am not clear whether the police come into this or not. Are the police entitled to go before these bodies, as they wore entitled to go before the licensing courts, and to show objection to a licence in any particular place? That is a most important provision of the existing licensing laws which does not seem to be covered by this Bill.
To summarise, an applicant under the existing licensing laws must show need and objections can be lodged. These matters are decided judicially. It is now proposed that there is no cause to show a need for a licence and no call to go before the court or to the Minister. Under this Bill the licensing court is not allowed to consider need at all. If three conditions are satisfied the licensing court is bound—the word "shall" is used, "shall

grant a licence"—to put a rubber stamp on and the licence is granted.
At present a licensing court can take into consideration all the circumstances surrounding the proposed licence. They can hear objections, they sit in public, and the public knows what is happening. Under this scheme they may sit in private and, if they sit in public or in private, as far as I can see, when an inquiry is held under the ægis of the Secretary of State all that happens is that the objectors are allowed to state their objections, but there is no call on anyone else to appear before the court. The inquiry is on the lines of inquiries in other circumstances, which are quite different, where the Secretary of State is to hear objections.
What the public want to know is the justification for a licence. Under this Bill, the potential licencee is not called upon to show cause why a licence should be given. That is an extreme departure from the whole purpose fo the existing licensing laws under which every applicant for a licence must show cause; the police have a right to object and members of the public. Churches, etc., have a right to object, and the court decides judicially after hearing the evidence. As far as I can see, under this Bill there will merely be an administrative body and no objectors to the licence will be heard. It seems to me to be a very bad step to deprive the licensing court of all its existing rights to take every circumstance into account in considering these matters.
Another more detailed point is that the Bill overturns one of the principles of the existing licensing laws by which no person under the age of 21 is allowed to get a licence. That does not seem to be repeated in this Bill, and I should like to know whether it is to be put in. It also abolishes the general rule that a certificate is not valid until it is confirmed by the licensing appeal court. A licence is granted and there is no question of the appeal court being called in; the appeal court's power is entirely abolished.
It has been pointed out several times that there has been no mention of this change in the programme of the present Government in regard to legislation this Session. If there was to be a change and the Government wanted to abolish the State management system in the new


towns, what is being proposed is not the only alternative, and not the alternative given to the House by the Members of the present Government during the Second Reading of the previous Bill.
One of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland said that he had no objection to municipalisation of public houses, and I think the Home Secretary also said he had no objection to municipal public houses. He evidently thought the alternative was a municipal public house. The Joint Under-Secretary asked why we could not leave the new towns the opportunity to get on with the job themselves? I ask the Government why they have not done that, if they thought it was the alternative? Why did they not give them the opportunity of getting on with the job themselves and why have they handed it back to the publicans?
The drink trade in Scotland disgraced itself in the past and acquired a very unsavoury reputation for contributing to the degradation and misery of the Scottish people by its greed for profits and complete disregard for good social conduct. It would be very difficult for the drink trade to eliminate that from the minds of people in Scotland. There is a great feeling about this in Scotland. Everyone who is old enough will remember the feeling created by the Bands of Hope, and that still persists.
I realise that there have been great improvements in the behaviour of the Scottish people. I never see drunken people staggering about the streets as was the case in the old days, and I gladly recognise the tremendous improvement which has taken place in social life. But the former reputation of the drink trade lives on, and they must do something to eliminate that from the minds of the people before there will be any confidence in their management of this commerce.
We are convinced that it would be wrong to allow that trade, with its reputation for corrupting social government and legislation, with its reputation for undermining the probity of people in Scottish administration, to get into the new towns where people appointed by the State are trying to build ideal cities. We believe it is in the public interest to ensure that this trade is directed without

danger to the people. The existing Act provides for that, but this Bill, I fear, abolishes all the safeguards.
I am sure I speak for a great mass of the Scottish people; members of Churches, temperance people, and indeed people who are not temperance people in the sense of being prohibitionists, but who want to see our towns and cities well managed. They want to see our cities free from all the ugliness that has attached to the drink trade in the past and which we certainly do not want to introduce into these new towns which we hope are being built with new standards of conduct, free from corrupting influences. For that reason I hope the House will support the Amendment and will reject this Bill.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. John MacLeod: I must first declare my interest, as I am a director of a whisky broking firm and a director of a company which owns three small hotels in the Highlands of Scotland; but I am sure the House will agree that will not influence my remarks this evening.
The right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) said that he believed he was speaking for a great number of people in Scotland. He also said that there had been a great improvement in the way that drink was served, and so on—which I thought rather broke down his argument. I am sure he is not speaking for the controlled area of Ross and Cromarty. In my constituency I have one of the two State controlled areas in Great Britain and I wish to tell the House some of the complaints made in my constituency regarding State managed hotels.
I was sorry to hear the Home Secretary suggest that an experiment to seek to extend the control system might be put into operation. I maintain that the extraordinary position which existed and necessitated the control of the Ross and Cromarty area, for which I speak particularly, is now over and passed, and that this area should be de-controlled. But I do not know how far I can follow that argument in this debate.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member says he speaks for the people in the Ross and Cromarty area and that they want decontrol. Does he not think it rather strange that when I was Secretary of State


for Scotland and had a good deal of contact with Ross and Cromarty, and also while my successor, who had a great connection with the same area, was in office, not one word ever reached either of us about this feeling which the hon. Member says exists?

Mr. MacLeod: I am very surprised, but perhaps that reflects on my having been the representative of that area for the past six years, and not having taken, until this occasion, the opportunity of bringing it to the notice of the Government of the day.
As I understand it, the monopoly of State control in Dingwall has meant that there is no option at all. I understand that no one can come into the Ross and Cromerty area and obtain a free licence unless he obtains a letter of authority to do so from the Secretary of State for Scotland. As far as I am aware, nobody has ever obtained such a letter from any Secretary of State for Scotland since this area was controlled.

Mr. George Benson: Has anybody applied?

Mr. MacLeod: I cannot answer that question. I dare say people have applied. Perhaps they thought it was pretty hopeless to apply when they found out about the complete monopoly which appears to exist in that area.
Hotels there are run like a State machine. I am afraid that the atmosphere which is associated with hotels—and particularly, I hope, with the hotels in the Highlands—in which "mine host" is ever in attendance, supervising every meal of the visitor, is now absent. That, I think, is no reflection on the personnel or their efficiency at the present time. It is merely that the managements of these hotels just manage them for some remote State machine.
The town council of Dingwall have, I am assured, lodged protests again and again suggesting that the organisers of social functions leave the town and hold their functions outside the area in places which are not under State control. Another complaint is that, in a place the size of Dingwall, all three hotels refuse to accommodate parties of more than 70 guests. This means that weddings and dinners, and so on, have to be held outside the town. I have been informed that just recently a party of 30 from outside

Dingwall attended the opening of a new savings bank in Dingwall, and were refused accommodation in the town. They had to hold their luncheon outside. That is not a very good case for State management.
Organisers of various functions are penalised because of this State monopoly. When agricultural shows, Highland gatherings and functions of a similar nature are held, outside caterers fight with one another for the privilege of securing the catering rights, and a substantial cheque is also secured by the organisers. In Dingwall none but the State-controlled establishments can carry out catering for such functions, and private individuals are de-barred. Another complaint is that State-managed establishments pay nothing at these outside functions and make a very considerable profit.
Recently another town council in my constituency, in the borough of Fort-rose, asked for the support of other towns in requesting that the profits—I think this is a suggestion which should be treated very seriously by the Secretary of State—from these State management districts should be spent in the districts, and not sent to the national Exchequer, where they are but a drop in a bucket.

Mr. Mitchison: I am a mere Englishman trying to follow this excursion into the wilds of Dingwall. Could the hon. Gentleman explain which of these places are new towns, and how the disposal of the profits of public houses in a place the name of which I could not hear is connected with what we are now discussing?

Mr. MacLeod: With all respect, I think it is very largely connected with it. This is the sort of thing which goes on under State management at the present time, and will continue to go on if this Bill is not passed.
As a matter of fact, it was suggested by the late Government that there should be a new town at Invergordon, in my constituency. They made out a case for a new town there, and some plans may even have been drawn up, but I do not think they got much further. Let us suppose that there were a new town established at Invergordon. What


would happen to these controlled hotels within that area? I should like to know, because I certainly would advocate that there should be a new town at Invergordon. I hope we shall eventually have one there, and draw off some of the surplus population from the industrial areas. Should that development take place, what will happen to the controlled hotels in that area?
I do not want to delay the House any longer, but I wanted to point out these facts, and to show that these unhappy conditions exist in the area of Ross and Cromarty, where we have nationalised hotels.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I could not gather what was the relevance of the speech of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. J. MacLeod) to the provisions of this Bill. I do not think that the hon. Member has a new town in his division. I have; Glen Rothes is a developing mining town in the division of West Fife, and I want to underline some of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn).
I believe that we could have wasted a lot of time in this Second Reading debate in discussing the respective merits and demerits of State as opposed to private ownership of public houses, but I do not think that that issue is involved. Certainly, this is controversial legislation, and I believe that public opinion in the new towns would be a very close reflection of the political loyalties of the people concerned. I believe that, if a census were taken in Glen Rothes, for instance, there is no doubt that the people would oppose this Bill. I do not think that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will challenge me on that, but, if he does, I invite him to go there, because it is not far from his own division, West Fife.
Indeed, the Glen Rothes Development Corporation opposes this Bill. They want State development and State control of licensed premises in Glen Rothes. Why is that? They believe that these new towns—and this was the argument advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)—are being developed for the welfare of the people in them, and that the last consideration involved was any question of

private profit for anyone. Yet, now that these new towns are being developed to a considerable degree, we have this Conservative Government saying, "All right, now we have got the development, let us make some profit at the public expense." That is what it amounts to, and I believe that this is basically a fight on that principle.
It was asserted during the Second Reading debate on the Bill introduced in 1948 that the Labour Government had no mandate for doing what they did, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is now Home Secretary said at that time that there was not a word about it in "Let Us Face the Future." I believe that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) also said something on the same lines, indicating that we had no mandate. Well, I want to ask the present Government where is their mandate?
Incidentally, I might remark in passing that the Liberal Party, represented by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris), dutifully knelt before its Tory leaders at that time, and that the Liberal Party went into the Lobby against the Labour Government. As far as I could see, their only argument at that time was that the Labour Government had no mandate for the Measure. I submit that the present Government have no mandate for this Measure, and that the majority of people in Scotland will oppose it, and certainly the people of my own town of Glen Rothes.
Assuming that the Bill receives a Second Reading, I want to speak on behalf of the corporation of Glen Rothes concerning one or two safeguards, remembering all the time that they are opposed to the principle of the Bill, and that they object to it on many grounds.
First, they want to know how existing licensed premises are to be dealt with, because there appears to be no provision for them in the Bill. Secondly, they want to know whether there is to be one committee for each new town area, or whether, in fact, there will be one committee that might serve two towns. Even on the assumption that there is to be one committee for each town, the corporation will not have a majority of members on the committee. They are to have half the membership, with the other half appointed from other sources, with an


independent chairman having no voting powers, except that of giving a casting vote. The corporation would like to see incorporated in the Bill a guarantee which would ensure that they would have a majority on the committee itself. Surely, this is fundamental, if all the amenities of the new towns are to be planned by the corporation which was set up for the purpose.
The third objection which the corporation have is to the provision that the development corporation, as far as they can interpret this Measure, have to pay the expenses of the committee. They must provide accommodation, secretarial facilities and that kind of thing for this committee at a time when the Government are pledged to build 50 per cent. more houses per year than the Labour Government. They have to provide all this accommodation and pay all the expenses of the committee.
We should not forget, of course, the schools that are not now to be built. "Pubs before schools"—that is the motto of the party opposite; and profits before everything. That is what we are discussing tonight, and let nobody be under any delusion about it. We on this side of the House have no vested interests. None of us need declare an interest before making a speech. I have no interest. Indeed, if I had my way I would put a bomb under the Smoke Room and the pub in this building.
The only people with whom I am concerned are the people of Glen Rothes, and I am sure those people do not want private interests to come in. After all, they are a mining community and know what private interests do. They do not want them to interfere with a publicly developed institution and take out profits from that community. I can assure the House that the people of Glen Rothes will organise opposition to this Measure, and I shall certainly play my part in organising it.
I am convinced that the moral aspects of this matter are typical of the Tory approach to what is, after all, a social problem with which we are dealing this evening. The party opposite are approaching it in the way in which the Tory Party always approach these things. Their main consideration is how much can those with vested interests in the brewing industry get out of it.

7.2 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): I intend to detain the House for only a few minutes in dealing with the Scottish problems associated with this Measure, and I will attempt to reply quickly to the points raised by hon. Members opposite and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod).
The right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) began by complaining that the Bill included Scotland. He said that there ought either to have been a Scottish Bill or that this Bill should not have applied to Scotland at all. The best answer to the right hon. Gentleman was provided by his right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) when this matter was last discussed. Let me read to the right hon. Gentleman what his own right hon. Friend said in 1949, when precisely this point was raised:
The three last licensing Acts, the Licensing Act, 1921, the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1923, and the Licensing ((Permitted Hours) Act, 1934, have been United Kingdom Measures. So I think it is desirable that where we can we should have United Kingdom Measures on this matter. We are not breaking fresh ground, but are following the most recent precedents, when we deal with England and Wales and Scotland in the same Measure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May, 1949; Vol. 465, c. 339.]
If that was right then, I do not see how it can be wrong now. In fact, this is a matter which affects our two countries more or less in the same way. Of course, the results are not precisely the same. Our methods in Scotland are different, as I will point out, but the broad principle is the same.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman will surely agree that on nearly every Bill that came before the House—certainly during my term of office—his hon. Friends rose and complained that there was not a separate Bill for Scotland. Why this sudden conversion even to the point of view of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), a view with which I do not necessarily agree? Why are the party opposite so slavishly imitating him and the previous Government when they so violently protested against what was being done at the time?

Mr. Stewart: That is a fair point, but if the right hon. Gentleman looks at


the Bill he will see that its application to Scotland is compressed into a relatively small part of the Measure. There is very little in it actually, and I do not think we should have been justified in departing from the normal practice of the House in this particular matter. In other cases I am as anxious, and have always been as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman that a Scottish Bill should be produced, but not unless it is necessary, and I do not think it is in this case.
The right hon. Gentleman then asked who was consulted. I might as well ask him whom he consulted when he brought forward the previous Bills. Did he consult the people and the bodies whose names he listed? We have to take account of the public interest, and have done so, but we also have to act according to the principles upon which we won the Election, and that is the answer to the question about the mandate. Nobody in the country was in any doubt at all at the last Election—I am sure the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) was not—that we stood wherever possible for the abolition of nationalised enterprises. This was one of them.
Hon. Members opposite have really very little right to press this matter. Nobody knew what they wanted to do. They had very confused thoughts upon it, and, apparently, they could not arrive at any proper conclusion. Indeed, they had all the attributes of that strange machine, the utiliser, about which we beard this afternoon, a machine which, I understand, mixes things together and turns out neither one thing nor the other in the end. That is what the party opposite did.

Mr. James H. Hoy: That is the description of a National Liberal.

Mr. Stewart: The party opposite have no policy at all. They had no policy at the Election, and they did not tell the country where they stood. We did.

Mr. John Wheatley: The hon. Gentleman has said that this was part of the Tory Party's Election policy in Scotland. Will he mention one Tory candidate in Scotland who, at the General Election, included in his Election address or campaign the denationalisation of these establishments?

Mr. Stewart: No, I do not think I could at short notice.

Mr. J. MacLeod: I was heckled at one of my Election meetings on this very point and I said I hoped that controlled hotels in the area would be denationalised.

Mr. Wheatley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would explain whether he was then a Liberal, an Independent Liberal, a National Liberal or a Tory candidate?

Mr. MacLeod: I was then standing as a National Liberal, and I am as good a Liberal as any in this House.

Mr. Stewart: When the party opposite have composed their own quarrels they will then be justified in searching for invisible breaches on this side.
The right hon. Gentleman opposite put several questions to me. The first was about the control to be exercised by these new joint committees. With respect, I think the right hon. Gentleman may have got it a little confused. Let me try to put it as I understand it. The joint committee in each of the two new towns in Scotland—and I rather fancy there will be a separate committee in each town—

Mr. Hamilton: There is no provision for them.

Mr. Stewart: I am just telling the hon. Gentleman that I rather expect there will be. Indeed, I cannot imagine that anything else would be done. The joint committee in each town will consider whether and where as the town develops there should be a hotel, a restaurant and a public house. That joint committee is composed of representatives of the corporation and members of the licensing court. Therefore, it has both views represented on it.
The right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), as I understood him, pressed hard for the strengthening of the position of the licensing court. It is there at the very centre. They come to the conclusion that there should be so many hotels and restaurants, and perhaps attached to them bowling greens, and so many public houses situated here and there and the licensing court members on that joint committee have presumably agreed.
That scheme is then published and advertised in the Press. Everybody knows about it. There is nothing hole and corner about it at all. Objections can be made by anybody, including the police. Those objections and proposals are put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who can confirm, alter or reject them. At that point again the police can come in, if they so choose, and exercise all the authority they used to do.
My right hon. Friend ultimately confirms the scheme. It is then that the licensing court, quite apart from this joint committee, exercises its authority in granting the licences. But it does not grant licences except to people whose circumstances it has examined with the greatest care to discover whether they are the right kind of people or whether the public house, hotel or restaurant, will be of the right kind. I can assure the right hon. Member for East Stirling that his fears should be set aside. The right hon. Member raised the question whether there is any change in the law as applied to persons under 21 years of age. There is no change in the law. No licence can be granted to anyone under 21 years of age. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members for Scotland will feel reasonably satisfied on that score.

Mr. Woodburn: I raised the very important point that under this Bill there is no onus on the applicant to show need, as is the case under the present licensing Act. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether that is the case or not?

Mr. Stewart: It is quite true that there is a change, but the question whether there is need is a question to be discussed and settled by the new joint committee. I submit that that method of the joint committee is far more effective and safer, from the temperance point of view, in ensuring that there is really a need.

Mr. Manuel: I think we all agree that the new towns corporation should have certain safeguarding powers. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that under this Bill it is possible for the committee to be outvoted on the question of the new town sites by other interests?

Mr. Stewart: As hon. Members know, the committee is based on a 50–50 repre-

sentation of two bodies, with an independent chairman. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Fife, West, that the Glenrothes Corporation and, indeed, the other corporation feel they should have a majority on the committee. It may also be the point in the mind of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). But the committee is a balanced affair with an independent chairman. if any one section of the committee, let us say the new town corporation, were dissatisfied with the conclusion, they would be free to make representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and he would be ready to consider them at any time.

Mr. Hamilton: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that in new towns, where all development should be under the control of a development corporation, the corporation should have a majority on the committee?

Mr. Stewart: What am I to do? The hon. Member for Fife, West, wishes to give greater power to the new town corporations and therefore less power to the licensing courts. But his right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling was more concerned to make it the other way. He was concerned lest the licensing authority's influence would be weakened. We have balanced the thing as reasonably as any set of human beings can balance it.

Mr. Woodburn: Under the existing law the licensing court is entitled to take all circumstances into account, but under the proposed new law they are confined to satisfying themselves that three conditions laid down in the Bill are satisfied.

Mr. Stewart: We must see, of course, how this works out, but our considered view—and we have taken advice—is that all circumstances will be considered and will be better and more effectively considered by this new joint body than they otherwise would be.

Mr. Ross: Under the Bill a development corporation whose representation on this new committee is unanimously opposed to the site or to the type of accommodation that is being established on a site can be outvoted. Despite the unanimous opposition of the development corporation the proposal can go through.

Mr. Stewart: I am trying to be fair to hon. Members. That is a theoretical position, but what is likely to happen in practice? Here is a committee of reasonable Scotsmen and women. Half of them are justices of the peace and members of the licensing courts. They are our own friends whom we know and whom we trust to understand these matters. The other half represent the corporation. They consider whether there should be three, four, or five hotels and they come to the conclusion that they should be erected on certain sites. I do not think it is likely that there will be this harsh division of opinion between the two sides of the committee. But if there were, either side is free to make representations to my right hon. Friend, and he will not confirm the scheme until he satisfies himself that what is proposed is reasonable. He may very well sanction a change or amendment of the scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty, whose intervention was, I thought, extremely helpful, brought some useful facts to the notice of the House. He brought out the fact that in those areas where there are State-run pubs there is not all that unanimity of praise we had been led to understand existed. I see the right hon. Member for South Shields has come back into the Chamber and I might take up now the point he made that under this Bill every new establishment erected in a new town would, from now on, be a tied house.
With very great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he could not have known anything about Scottish conditions when he made such a statement because out of all the public houses and hotels in Scotland fewer than½ per cent. were tied houses according to the last information from the Royal Commission of 1931. I am not aware that there has been any change in the situation since, but if hon. Members have other figures to give let us have them.
The tied house is a thing we scarcely know at all in Scotland and I have no reason to believe that there will be tied houses in these new towns. It will be for the corporations and the licensing courts—I have no doubt they will act together—to see that these new houses and hotels are in the best hands avail-

able; and no doubt they will make them as independent as they can.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty said, and here again I am sorry to say that the right hon. Gentleman was at fault, in Gretna and in Cromarty, it may also be so in Carlisle, there is not one independent house nor has there even been an independent house since the State took control. There cannot be an independent house without the authority of the Secretary of State and never once has that authority been given. If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong in that respect as well. There is not one. As for Invergordon becoming a new town, there is no thought in the mind of the Government at present of anything of that kind.
The hon. Member for Fife, West, said he thought that if a census could be taken at Glen Rothes the people there would be opposed to this Bill. The hon. Member is entitled to take that view if he chooses; it is in his constituency, but he knows that Glen Rothes is only in its very early stages. There are not a great many people there, so that that does not mean very much. We hope that it may have a population of 10,000 or more; and if there had been 10,000 people there the hon. Member's evidence might have been worth while, but I do not think that in the circumstances it means very much.
We have taken such opinion and advice as we can obtain, and we are certain that what we are doing is right. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member say that Glen Rothes Corporation were against this Bill. I know that both there and in East Kilbride the corporation are opposed, as I have said, to the 50–50 proposal. But I think, and I very much hope that Members in all parts of the House who represent Scotland will, in the end, agree, that by balancing the licensing interests, which are of enormous importance, and the planning interests, which are also important, this system may well be the best.
I have dealt with the point about a single committee for each town. I have dealt with the matter of the majority. The only other point that remains concerns the payment of expenses by the corporation. I imagine that my Scottish friends on both sides of the House would agree that the corporation ought to provide the facilities—office accommodation, etc.—for this important committee.
I am not here to speak about English conditions; but I agree with the right hon. Member for East Stirling that on this matter of licensing and the drink trade there is the strongest and deepest sentiment in Scotland. I was brought up in all the surroundings of a temperance household and tradition. I understand it. I represent a constituency which has taken a very prominent part, through the church and in other directions, in advancing the cause of temperance. I fully understand all that, and the last thing that the Government would seek to do would be to affront the Scottish people in that matter.
Our desire is that of the right hon. Member for East Stirling, that this function of the new towns shall be performed with the greatest possible care and good judgment, that we shall take the best advice, that we shall try to ensure the most attractive buildings and that the service provided in those buildings, not only drink, not only food but other refreshments also, shall be such that those buildings will be places where any of us could, if we wished, take our wives and children, if we thought that way. I do not think that way, but there may he others who do.
That is what we are aiming at, to get the drink trade away from its unhappy past. If men must drink—and we know they do—let us ensure, and this is the purpose of the Government, that they may drink in conditions of which our country may at least be proud.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: The interlude in the debate, which has been filled by Scottish Members in an interesting way, has, I hope, thrown light on the fact that things in Scotland are different from what they are here in respect of the matter under discussion. There are many differences. They have the Scottish Temperance Act, and they are proud in Scotland to call it by that name. Legislation and public opinion there are of such a character that this Government have not dared, in the legislation before us, to interfere with the operations of the Scottish Temperance Act.
I will not attempt to interfere in Scottish affairs more than to say that the extent to which the new town areas can be made to utilise the advantages that

are available under the Scottish Temperance Act will be a way of providing protection for the more decent attitude in Scotland against the machinations of this Bill.
I turn to what I call the machinations of the Government or of the trade. This is an old story. The venal and furtive pressure of the liquor trade on pliant Governments, particularly Conservative Governments, is a well-known story. Nobody has commented upon it more vigorously than the present Leader of the Tory Party. If I have time, I hope I may be allowed to quote the Leader of the Conservative Party, the present Prime Minister.
Some things have been said tonight about the way the Bill has been brought about; indeed, that is the main issue before us. The provisions of the Bill have their own importance, but nothing like the importance of the revelations which we have had tonight about the way in which the Tory Central Office works in matters of this sort. I find it difficult to say all that is in my mind about this subject in front of the Home Secretary, because I admire him and reciprocate the very kindly words he uses about me; but he is a member of a dreadful party. He has given me information tonight which I am sure he believes, but which has been shown to be quite mistaken.
Lord Woolton did not, certainly in the places where he should have made statements, say anything about this Bill so that the Government might be judged by the people who were voting at the General Election. Lord Woolton, apparently knowing nothing about it—I do not intend to read his private letter —had left it to the Tory Central Office to make statements about what the Tory Government would do if they were returned in a General Election.
I have hunted carefully through all the records. I have had the assistance of churches and temperance societies in hunting through all their records. I find that the newspapers also were hot on the trail. They joined in the hue and cry. One might almost have thought they had got a scent of red meat again. None of them could find what Lord Woolton had said.
It is true that my right hon. Friend the former Home Secretary told the House that there was an unofficial statement—one that I have never heard of before—which was not published in any prominent place until the Election was over. Out comes Mr. Percey to tell an audience in the Isle of Wight what would happen if we had a Conservative Government. There are a lot of people besides Mr. Percey's friends in the liquor trade who are interested in the vote that ought to be cast on a matter of this sort. The churches are very interested in the matter; they are as interested as my friends in Scotland. The temperance societies are very interested. They had a right to know before the Election if this matter was to be made the important issue which it has proved to be.
We can postpone Budgets apparently, but not this question. We can put off all that we promised about steel. We are not dealing with the explicit promises made about transport. There is a whole series of very vital issues dealing with health, schools and children. They are all postponed or not introduced. But this Measure on licensed houses—yes, this is the thing. I repeat that, as has happened before—I am not including the right hon. and learned Gentleman in this —the liquor trade knows that it has got its agents—the potmen of the Tory Cabinet.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has spent some time in saying that he did not give the liquor trade all they wanted. But he has given them enough in this Bill to satisfy them entirely. It is not good enough to say that there was in existence a type of legislation which it was better to follow than the legislation which my right hon. Friend introduced—the legislation following on the Morris Report. I was temporarily outside the House in those days, but I was a very interested observer and I sat in the box allowed to the public to watch all the proceedings. I understood the validity of that Bill. It was justified by the special circumstances of the blitzed areas, the overspill areas as they came to be known. It was put forward by a Coalition Government that hoped it had got public opinion behind it. It was only a few months before the General Election, and it found it had not got any public opinion behind it. In fact

that Bill was no indication at all of public support.
I suggest that a far better type of legislation was that which followed the frank proposal of the Royal Commission that there should be an experimental extension of the Carlisle scheme which, it is said—I do not altogether agree—had been successful enough to justify a further extension. Although the Royal Commission made recommendations about this matter, the Conservative Party following 1931, when the Report was made, always took the line—and particularly Sir John Simon at Question time in the House, and even when Measures were introduced here —that they could not stand for a piecemeal approach to the licensing problem, that there ought to be a complete frontal approach to this problem which was presented by the whole of the licensing conditions in the country.
I thought there was some sense in that view. It is right, if this matter is so important, that if we are going to do something we should not nibble at it. The Labour Government was justified because it found the brewers nibbling at it anyhow in the new towns, and if they had not taken action in the new towns the brewers would have gone off with the whole of the swag before anything could have been done about it.
But even that does not justify this continued neglect by all parties in this House of the problem that confronts us. The problem is twofold. It is represented by the expenditure on drink last year and the year before—in these difficult years. We hear talk about a financial crisis, but in 1949 the expenditure on drink was £719 million and, in 1950, £727 million. As far as we can make out, in 1951 the amount was about the same —a little less on beer, but more on spirits and wine.
This problem is represented by the wholesale diversion of badly needed food such as sugar and grains which could be used for feedingstuffs and which this House is constantly discussing. It is a problem represented by repeated accidents on the roads and the Lord Chief Justice pronouncing in favour of imprisonment and all sorts of extreme penalties because of what is taking place.
It is a problem represented by the return of drunkenness, as my right hon.


Friend the Member for South Shields said, which we thought was disappearing. In 1946 the number of drunkenness convictions was down to 20,000 for the year. In 1950, only four years afterwards, there were 47,000. In 1951 Chief Constables were already reporting to their watch committees that, as far as they could see, the increase was continuing.
It is all very well the right hon. and learned Gentleman talking about what the liquor trade has done in improving its houses. What has it done to lessen the drunkenness statistics? The Royal Commission surveyed all this and came to certain conclusions about it. It said that there ought to be set up a new central national licensing authority which would have better powers in levying the trade and in continuing the work of clearing out redundant licences which for years the Tory Party admitted was a great problem in this country. It is a problem, that, to use a phrase of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister represented horrid havoc.
That was what the Prime Minister once said about the liquor trade. What did the Tories set out to do in 1904? If anyone doubts it they may find a recital of the facts in paragraph 115 of the Report of the Royal Commission. The Tories, through their leaders, set out to bring about a reduction of licences in this country from 99,000, as they then were, by 48,000—at the rate of 2,500 a year. They passed their legislation, but they never got a reduction of 2,500 in any year. They exceeded 2,000 in one year only. They are now in the neighbourhood of only 300 a year reduction.
The position has got steadily worse and today, instead of having a reduction of 48,000, which the Tory Party agreed ought to be brought about, they have got something like 64,000 licences. I think that is the figure to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) referred. Now there is an addition of all those institutions which my other hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Glanville), persisted in recommending—the registered clubs, to which we should also add innumerable bottle shops and licensed restaurants, with heaven knows what, to meet his requirements.
There are now far more drinking institutions in this country than there were when the Tory Party, with honesty in the

matter, began to deal with this licensing problem. The Royal Commission was right in its recommendation to establish a national licensing commission, which could have dealt with these new towns and which could have hurried up the backward areas, where magistrates were doing nothing. Something of that sort was called for. To have carried that plan through would have been a problem of statesmanship. The Labour Party did not adopt the line of a national licensing commission, but it took one part of the recommendations of the Report of the Royal Commission. It is the part that I like least, but at any rate it did not neglect its duty.
The line that the Royal Commission suggested is not what is being proposed today. I know there is an expectation that I shall be greatly embarrassed by the vote that I shall record tonight in that I shall appear to be supporting this idea of the extension of the Carlisle experiment. In principle, I do not stand for the nationalisation of those things which bring curses in their train instead of blessings. I stand for the nationalisation of coal, because it is a good thing to extend the production of coal and we all thank God today that we can say, "More, more and more coal." Apparently there is an hon. Gentleman—who has now departed—the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) who has been half suggesting tonight that it would be a good thing, too, to extend the production and consumption of beer. At any rate, the licensing legislation of the Tory Party in 1904, which aimed at a reduction of 48,000 licences, was not thinking about a considerable increase—

Mr. Glanville: There would not be any coal without beer.

Mr. Hudson: To the extent that I could persuade the miners to leave liquor alone I would prove a better advertisement for increased production of coal than ever the hon. Gentleman will be. I will leave it at that.

Mr. Glanville: The miners are doing better now than ever before. I did my level best for a great number of years, but I was associated with a great deal of consumption as well as production. Although this does not appertain to the matters before the House at the moment, if my hon. Friend will only go down-


stairs with me and have one night's good "booze-up" he will feel better for it.

Mr. Hudson: I will leave that to my hon. Friend. I hope, in time, to convince him of the truth of what I am saying. We shall have to leave it to impartial authority to judge who is the better advertisement of his cause—my hon. Friend or myself.
The Tory Party, about which I have spoken with reference to its past in 1904, had some sense of the importance of what I am dealing with now. Immediately before the Election there was a request by the churches and the temperance movement to the leaders of the three main parties to meet a deputation to discuss with them what reasonable line could be taken about what was admitted by everybody to be a problem.
My right hon. Friend the former Foreign Secretary, made a public statement about the size of the drink bill. The present Foreign Secretary, on one occasion, drew attention in the House to the wasteful expenditure on drink. The Chairman of the Liberal Party has emphasised the same view. The temperance movement and the churches said "Here are good men, of good will, in all parties, facing up to this, up to a point. What are they advocating should be done?" The Prime Minister did not meet them, but he appointed the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to take his place.
I will not recite the Chancellor's statements. They were very interesting, and he gave us a frank talk without committing himself. He had to see other members of his party. From that very friendly interview one would have thought that we were safeguarded from what actually happened—this Tory Central Office statement—but we were not. The trade was told precisely what it might expect. We were told that the matter we had raised would be talked over by the party and they hoped that something might be done about it.
At that interview the case for the churches was put by the Lord Bishop of Rochester. He put his case not as I would, naturally. I am speaking in terms of great respect about the way in which he did put his case, but it was different from the way I would have put it. The Bishop said there were many people who

voted temperance today who wanted to vote Conservative—he would not include me—and he wanted the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell him and the churches something that would encourage this large body of temperance people to vote that way.
Does anyone on the benches opposite imagine, after all that has been revealed tonight about the private talks with the trade and about leaving the matter to officials in the Tory Party Central Office, that they are making a good case to persuade keen Church people and temperance people to vote Conservative? During the discussion with the churches and temperance deputation, somebody said that Professor Trevelyan had referred in one of his books to the fact that the Tories were traditionally in the pockets of the trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was a little indignant about it. He said, "That is not true now, it was only the statement of a Whig."
I want him to look at the statement of another Whig—and this time I will answer the request for quotations. I do not know whether one would call the author of the following quotation a Whig, but he went to Nottingham one day to tell the people there that.
As for intemperance, the Tory Party had no policy except to make sure of the public house vote.
That was the Prime Minister. How do hon. Members think he would make sure? How do they think he thought the Tories made sure of the public house vote? Something which he said at Manchester, in the same period, provides the answer, when he said that the Tories stood for
the open hand at the Exchequer and the open door at the public house.
Speaking of Mr. Balfour's Government, he had some not very nice things to say. As I have said tonight, I could find something to recommend in that attitude which Mr. Balfour's Government adopted towards the need for reducing the number of licences. But, speaking of Mr. Balfour's Government the Prime Minister said
They had a capacity to sneer at every philanthropic enthusiasm while flinging sops from time to time to brewers and other of their friends.
That is the view of a Whig whose opinions still count with the Tory Party. I submit


that what has taken place about Lord Woolton and the unknown official in the Tory Party head office will emphasise to all thinking people what I have been saying.
I will make only one more quotation from the speeches of the Prime Minister, because I have taken too much time. It is a famous quotation; I do not know how many hon. Members have heard it. He said that the problem that faced them was the problem of
a brewer's dray blocking the road of progress.
That was very well put. I should think it was a brewer's dray which went full tilt into the middle of the Tory Central Office, blocking "The Right Road for Britain."
I must come to a close. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I want to say a word or two about that vast pretence of the thirsting millions who back up the trade in anything which the trade demands. The hon. Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson), told us what she knows of her constituency in this respect, as have hon. Members from Scotland. But there are not as many people at the back of the trade as there used to be. I hold in my hand a copy of the book which was quoted by almost everybody in the General Election. The Tories quoted it wholesale, and we certainly quoted it. It is "English Life and Leisure," by Mr. Seebohm Rowntree and Mr. G. R. Lavers.
There is a reference in that book to "Research Services" and what they discovered about the drinking habits of the people. They say, on the basis of a very wide series of examples examined, that only 8.7 per cent. of the people drink a pint of beer a day or more and that 45 per cent never drink beer at all.
In the case of wines and spirits, the percentage is bigger—22 per cent. drink less than one glass a week and 11½ per cent. drink one glass a week, so that my hon. Friend the Member for Consett has had no influence. About 70 per cent. of the people either do not drink at all or drink intoxicating beverage very rarely. It is the 8.7 per cent., supported so strongly 'by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett, who lead the Tories to think—and, I am sorry to say, lead my hon. Friend to think so, too—that there is a tremendous demand for the extension of drinking facili-

ties and that we must proceed very warily and carefully in the licensing legislation with which we deal. I think precisely the opposite.
In conclusion, I believe that the new towns presented an opportunity to all of us to give a chance to people, who very often have not had much of a chance in the crowded cities in which they lived, to climb to better levels and to live better lives. Those who take drink will agree with me—and I do not touch drink—that there are many people who take it and who would be glad if something could happen to help them to take less. I meet them every day. I suppose it is my reward—the greatest reward I can expect in life—that, out of the modest stand I take on this matter men of all political parties make known to me how the struggle against these habits still goes on amongst all manner of people.
It would have been a good thing to make alcohol less freely available in the new towns, to put it under the most careful restrictions. I was not sure that my right hon. Friend's Bill, with its use of the Carlisle experiment, would do what I wanted, but I was willing to try it and I wanted to see safeguards adopted. I persuaded everybody I could, and they were at work on it, building up advisory committees, so as to create an opinion which would help people who would like to struggle against the habits which conquer them.
Toryism need not be entirely deaf to that appeal. I know, when I talk to the Home Secretary, that I can get his sympathy on this matter. Toryism ought to be adopting a different line at every turn in this matter, if it wants to hold the intelligence of the people for the purposes of its proposals, if for no other reason. Toryism ought to be interested in this, and certainly we in this party ought to be interested. I once told Mr. Gallacher, who was formerly a Member of this House, that even the Russians had a clearer vision on this matter than some of us. It was Lenin who once said that the way back to Capitalism from Socialism was the way of alcohol, and he laid down a very strong rule for himself. I wish more people in this House would lay down a similar rule. I think that it would be a better guide and a better stimulus for sobriety than this legislation which Toryism has brought in.
I wish we could all take a stronger stand about this evil of the drink trade, of the drink habit, with its drunkenness, its accidents, its crime, its lunacy and its poverty. We try to do our duty in respect of the Health Service and in providing for the children of the country. We should then make a better contribution to making that better world we already try to make by our other efforts here. I ask for the reconsideration of this Bill, and I hope that even now the Government will be able to withdraw it.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: We have all listened with respect to the views of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson). We respect his sincerity and the opinions which he expresses on these occasions. He mentioned in the first part of his speech this matter of the mandate, and I hope to answer that during my speech. On the general temperance issue, I am afraid that we shall just have to agree—I hope with mutual respect—to differ.
It seems to me that the salient point of this Bill is that it repeals Part I of the 1949 Act, which would have deprived considerable numbers of people of the right to choose their own beer—or certainly, their own draught beer—and would have deprived them of the right to choose where to drink it. Of course, I fully admit that that was not the object of the Act; but that was, in fact, what would have been the effect of it. Therefore, that Act—quite rightly, in my opinion—was extremely unpopular with the people most concerned, that is to say, with the residents in the areas of the new towns.
It was particularly unpopular in Hertfordshire, which was, perhaps, the county most affected by it, and it was especially unpopular in my own constituency in which is situated the new town of Stevenage. Indeed, it was so unpopular there that my predecessor in the representation of the Hitchin division—quite rightly, I thought—spoke and voted against his own party and against his own Government on the Second Reading of that Bill in 1948. I remember the stalwart speeches he made at that time up and down North Hertfordshire. I was doing the same, but, of course, I was

expected to do it, and he was not, so he derived—and I am very glad he did derive—a lot of credit for his courage and for the resolute way in which he represented the views of the constituency.
There was at that time no public demand for that Act whatever. Very much the reverse. Certainly there was no demand in the new towns for it, and such attempts as were made at that time to ascertain public feeling revealed tremendous majorities against the Act of 1949. That was so in Stevenage, Crawley, Hemel Hempstead, and Harlow, where 50 per cent. of the electorate at that time there, voted. It worked out at 110 in favour and over 2,000 against.
We heard a lot of noise in the House today when the Minister of Food was answering Questions about State buying. I can assure hon. Members that, whatever they may feel about State buying, my constituents feel just as strongly—much more strongly—about State beer. They dislike the very idea of State beer. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have never had it."] I said the idea. My constituents fervently hope that they will never be asked to swallow what might—horrible thought! —what might even have come to be called "Attlee Mild" or "Bevan Bitter" or possibly "Shinwell Shandy." They do not want that sort of thing.
I believe that the decision to bring in this Bill will be supported by the residents, actual and prospective, in the new towns, by the local authorities, by the development corporations, which—of course, I stand to be corrected on this point by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)—which, I believe, were not consulted before the passing of the Act of 1949, and I think, by the public as a whole, who have always disliked the Act of 1949, quite irrespective of their normal party political allegiance, because, of course, this is not and should not be a political matter.
On this question of the brewers, which has been so much referred to today, hon. Members opposite seem to see something sinister about what has gone on behind this Bill. They are seething with synthetic indignation, but it is based on the totally false premise that this Bill has been engineered by the brewing industry. I do not want—I think it may be disrespectful


of me to do so—to deal with the rather unfortunate implication, as I think, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields that Lord Woolton or the Conservative Party were bribed—because that was the effect of what the right hon. Gentleman said—to form or change their policy at the behest of the brewers.

Mr. Thomas Price: Will the hon. Gentleman dispose of the suggestion or imputation or whatever he may call it by urging that the Conservative Party should publish their balance sheets to show what money, if any, comes from the brewing industry to finance the operations of the Tory Party?

Mr. Fisher: I think the onus of proof is on those who bring these charges.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can the hon. Gentleman name any time this century when the Tory Party have not been hand in glove with the brewers?

Mr. Fisher: The only evidence we have had so far—the only shred of evidence produced to this House today—has been, I think, the reference by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), who referred back to 1904, and even then did not suggest any pecuniary arrangement.

Mr. Lindgren: See the "Sunday Express" last Sunday.

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman has the advantage of me. I did not read it.

Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman's own paper.

Mr. Fisher: I cannot go into that. I would refute any suggestion of its being my own paper. That is rather like saying, "My own brewers." I cannot agree.

Mr. Glanville: Would the hon. Gentleman use his influence, if any, with the Conservative Central Office to persuade it to publish its balance sheets to clear away the suspicions that exist in the minds of all of us that the Conservative Party are financed largely by the brewers of this country?

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but he has not produced any evidence for it. I thought

that the imputation that the right hon. Gentleman made was an unfortunate one, and it was, I think, rather unworthy of him, because he is usually so fair in his speeches. I do not think that there is a word of truth in this allegation. I do not think that any convincing evidence—

Mr. Bing: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to say that neither in the last Election nor in the previous Election was there are large payment to the Conservative Central Office from the Brewers' Society or from brewers' organisations? Is he in a position to tell the House that?

Mr. Fisher: To be perfectly frank, I have absolutely no idea. Nor has the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not know anything about these hypothetical payments of which the hon. and learned Gentleman talks.

Mr. Bing: If the hon. Gentleman does not know that, how does he account for the fact that the first contentious Measure introduced by his party is one to benefit the brewers, and one that his party did not include in their programme or in the King's Speech?

Mr. Fisher: I am coming to the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I shall explain why we introduced the Bill, but so far as I know it was not at the behest of the brewers. I hold no brief for the brewers. They have no doubt a very good case, but they can argue it for themselves. I have not encountered in this House or outside any of this so-called "brewers' lobby." I have never been approached by any firm of brewers or by anyone acting on their behalf. I do not want to deal with this matter from the brewers' point of view. They can look after themselves. I want to deal with it from the point of view of the consumer and of my constituency.

Mr. George Porter: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that when the original Bill was being introduced, all the brewers in the country supplied every public house with propaganda against it?

Mr. Fisher: Of course, people are still allowed to defend themselves.

Mr. Porter: How could they do it without spending money?

Mr. Fisher: I expect out of their profits. I believe in profits. I want now to deal with the question of the mandate, to which the hon. Member for Ealing, North, and the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch referred. They both took the line that we have not a mandate for the Bill because it was not in our Election manifesto. That argument is not quite good enough. Had the late Government the faintest mandate for the 1949 Act? There was nothing about it in "Let us Face the Future," or in the New Towns Act, and so far as I know it has never been discussed at a Labour Party Conference. The right hon. Member for South Shields had no mandate from his own party, let alone from the public or from the residents in the new towns.
As was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), expressly rejected the argument during the Second Reading debate in December, 1948, that a Government must have an electoral mandate for every Measure they introduce. It is a fair point to make, and it was a fair answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave on that point. If it was a valid reply to the argument when given by the right hon. Gentleman, that reply must still be valid today. If this mandate argument has any validity, its only significance can be, not whether the proposal was in our respective election manifestoes but whether we made our intentions clear to the electorate at the time.
The party opposite did not make their intentions clear, either in 1945 or later, and not even in the Gracious Speech before their Measure was introduced. We certainly made our intentions clear in 1951. We vigorously opposed their Bill on its Second and Third Readings. The OFFICIAL REPORT leaves no doubt where we stood on that occasion. The present Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, speaking in another place, said:
We shall take the first opportunity that is afforded to us to amend the Bill, and to abolish all the State management areas and the arbitrary powers which the Socialist Minister seeks to take on himself.
Nothing could be clearer than that. During the last General Election we again made our position clear. We categorically said that we favoured repeal of State management, and that was reported in the national newspapers in early October.

On 23rd October, just before polling day, the Minister of State for the Colonies stated, in the "Morning Advertiser," that we should definitely repeal Part I of the Act. In a speech at Stevenage on 8th October, I told my own constituents, who were most anxious about this whole matter:
If you re-elect the Socialist Government you will have State pubs whether you like them or not. If you elect a Tory Government you will not have them. The Act will never be implemented.
That was a fairly straightforward statement, which I should never have ventured to make unless I was pretty confident about our party policy. I have no doubt that many hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House said the same sort of thing during the Election.
I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite declared their intentions with such clearness. I very much doubt whether they did. The Act of 1949 was not very popular. We are all human, and at election times hon. Members are very interested in votes. The Act was not a vote winner. I should think that if hon. Gentlemen opposite searched their hearts they would admit that if they thought of this issue at all during the Election, they felt that silence was sometimes more golden than the best State beer ever brewed in Britain. Not only was there no mandate for the 1949 Act, but there was no rhyme or reason for it.
There had at least been a good reason for the Carlisle experiment. There was a large increase in population because of the setting up of a munitions factory in Carlisle during the First World War, and there was a very serious increase in drunkenness which was affecting the making of munitions. Mr. Lloyd George, who was not given to curtailing liberty, had to curtail the liberties of the people of Carlisle in order to curtail that drunkenness and to further the war effort. No one suggests today that there is an increase in drunkenness in the new towns or in the country as a whole. I believe that the temperance and sobriety of the nation are as marked today as at any time in our history.

Mr. J. Hudson: The figures have more than doubled and they are still increasing.

Mr. Fisher: They are very much lower now than they were at an earlier period. It is not a very serious trend. I do not


want to see the figures increase any more than does the hon. Gentleman. Circumstances were very different at the beginning of the Carlisle experiment. There seems no reason for the 1949 Measure except, presumably—I am not going to make a party jibe because I genuinely think that this is the real reason—the doctrinaire desire of the Labour Party to create another State monopoly.
That is a principle that we reject and always have rejected. It is one of the reasons we opposed the 1949 Measure and support the present Bill. We believe in freedom of choice for the consumer to select for himself the beer he prefers to drink, and the sort of public house in which he prefers to drink it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to have that support from the Opposition.
Many people dislike large modern public houses. There are one or two where the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) lives and they are very attractive in their way. They are large and well-ventilated, and they have an air of great quality. But many people still prefer the small, old-fashioned inn, perhaps lacking in many modern amenities but possessing a charm and character, a homeliness and a friendliness of its own, that should be respected.
It is often said that the poor man's pub is his club, and he should be allowed to choose what sort of club he likes. The right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) is a member of White's and we should not deny to anyone the liberty to choose the surroundings in which to take his leisure. To my mind it was the greatest impertinence on the part of the party opposite to dictate to the people in the new towns how and in what atmosphere they should spend their leisure and what they should drink and where they should drink it. It was a quite unwarranted interference with the liberty and freedom of choice of the individual. It is high time that a British Government restored to the British people this traditional British freedom.
There are some Election promises which, owing to the calamitous financial position which we inherited from the party opposite, we have not yet implemented. We are always being reminded of that. I do not find it surprising, for, after all, we have only been in office for four months.

What is more surprising is that the party opposite failed after six years to implement many of its 1945 election promises.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: indicated dissent.

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Lady seems to disagree with me, but surely she will remember the promise of the late Mr. Ernest Bevin for four million or five million houses in very quick time. [HON. MEMBERS: "He never said that."] Certainly—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): Order. The hon. Member must not stray so far from the Bill.

Mr. Fisher: I was provoked, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but naturally I will leave this point, in deference to your Ruling. It is a pity, because I have about a dozen examples which would upset the equilibrium of the hon. Lady. Here we have a situation in which hon. Members opposite jeer because some of the promises we made we have not yet been able to carry out.

Mrs. Braddock: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I want to ask him one question. Has he any idea of the fact that the business people in the Exchange division of Liverpool, which I represent, are terribly distressed? In fact, they had their top hats and frock coats out waiting for the fulfilment of the promise that immediately the Conservative Party came into power the Liverpool Cotton Exchange would be reopened. They have had to put their top hats and frock coats back again because there is no sign of it.

Mr. Fisher: I think we are getting wide of the Bill but I would tell the hon. Lady that there was no promise that this would be immediately restored—

Hon. Members: Oh, yes, there was.

Mrs. Braddock: Immediately.

Mr. Fisher: "Immediately" is not the operative word.

Mrs. Braddock: The Prime Minister came to my constituency and told us so.

Mr. Fisher: We have already been told by Mr. Deputy-Speaker that we are out of order on that, so, in conclusion, I say that since hon. Members jeer, as the hon. Lady has been jeering, at some of the


promises which we have not yet been able to keep, then logically they ought to cheer when we carry out, as we are carrying out tonight, one of the promises we made. I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on having so speedily implemented this promise, which I at any rate made to my constituents at election time, and which I am quite certain will give much satisfaction to them and to other hon. Members who have new towns in their divisions.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. A. Hargreaves: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, in introducing the Bill, suggested, as did the hon. Members for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and Hitchin (Mr. Fisher), that he was completely opposed to the expenditure of public money in the innovation of State inns in the new towns. I want to deal with that point, because it is rather important to the Bill.
The fact is that in these new towns, and in most of the larger centres of population in this country, hundreds of millions of pounds of public money are being spent on housing development and industrial development. We all recognise that this provides an opportunity, especially for brewing interests, to make enormous profits, and there is no doubt that they have seized upon these opportunities. Certainly every one of us must recognise that the new towns represent an enormous profit for brewing interests.
I cannot exclude from that possibility the State management undertakings because we all know, from the annual reports presented to this House, that in the case of the Carlisle and District State Management Scheme the Treasury have received back within nine years all the money originally expended on that scheme. Since that date, £3½ million of profit has accrued to the Treasury from the State management undertakings, so there is no doubt that in spending hundreds of millions of State money on new housing development in new towns, and on the outskirts of every town and city in the country, an opportunity is provided and taken advantage of by brewing interests to make enormous profits.
When the Home Secretary referred to that point, I was reminded irresistibly of his own constituency. In Liverpool

about £40 million has been spent in providing houses. Liverpool is a particularly good instance where Toryism and the brewing interests are synonymous. No doubt the Home Secretary will remember that, prior to his advent in the constituency of West Derby in 1935, the managing director of Bent's Brewery was the leader of the Conservative Party, Sir Archibald Salvidge. There was a Tory majority in the city as well as among the licensing justices. When Sir Archibald Salvidge died, the next leader of the Conservative Party took over, as was natural. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] The hon. Gentleman asks why not? It is regarded as a natural thing. In taking over the management of the brewery, he naturally took over the chairmanship of the Conservative Party in the council and in the city, and also the chairmanship of the licensing justices.
When development took place on the outskirts of the city, in the constituency of the present Home Secretary, it was not unreasonable, therefore, to expect that even before the housing and industrial development took place, the Conservative majority, with the brewing and Conservative chairman in control, would know where that industrial and housing development would take place; and the public house development took place beforehand.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the magistrates were appointed by the Conservative Party or by the brewers?

Mr. Hargreaves: I am describing, in the constituency of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced the Bill today, the fortuitous set of circumstances which is to their very considerable advantage wherever new towns and new industries are provided.
Let me go on to one of the instances which the Home Secretary will remember. We found that this particular brewing interest was building a public house, called the "Bow and Arrow," in the constituency of the Home Secretary, in the middle of a field, with no housing development and no road development anywhere near it.

Mrs. Braddock: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hargreaves: I was a member of the housing committee at the time. I


found to my very great surprise that immediately housing development took place on the fringe of the Home Secretary's constituency, not only were there built there about 3,000 houses, but that the arterial road, about which I knew nothing whatever when the public house was built, went right past the door of the "Bow and Arrow" that had been built 10 years before—another instance of a completely fortuitous set of circumstances.

Mr. Marlowe: Drawing a bow at a venture.

Mr. Hargreaves: Quite.

Mrs. Braddock: It was not a shot in the dark, either. I opposed it on the council.

Mr. Hargreaves: In an adjacent constituency, there was another instance. Hon. Members will know of the East Lancashire Road, a 180 ft. arterial road, with enormous site value, with factories all round it and with, I think, 5,800 new houses under development. Land was bought by the housing committee for development by them for industry and housing. The housing committee was dominated by the Conservative Party, in a council with a Conservative majority of about 100 over other parties. I am dealing with the same kind of development as we visualise in the new towns. That land, the property of the housing committee, was bought for a specific purpose. They decided that no other development, certainly no public house development, would take place on that site.
To my very great surprise, the housing committee, dominated by the Tory Party and with brewing interests upon it, sold the housing land to the finance committee. The finance committee sold it to the brewery. The residue of the land that the brewery did not want came back to the housing committee, and today that 180 ft. arterial road, with its housing development of almost 6,000 houses and its thousands of industrial acres, is dominated by the Crown Hotel, owned and run by the firm associated with the chairman of the Conservative Party and the chairman of the brewery.

Mrs. Braddock: Will my hon. Friend also give to the House the instance of

the public house built by the same people in Liverpool and the provision for a 'bus to leave at two minutes past 10 in order to bring people from there because it was such a distance from housing accommodation? Will he also point out that the chairman of the finance committee to which the land was passed in the instance to which my hon. Friend referred was also the leader of the Conservative Party and managing director of Bent's Brewery?

Mr. Hargreaves: I do not want to go further into these matters, but I want to deal with the question as fairly and objectively as I can. I ask hon. Members opposite to accept this as a view held by a person who has had almost 22 years experience on a local authority housing committee and knows something about development of new estates and has seen them grow during those years. I say that they represent an enormous profit to the interests I have described but, in addition, they represent an enormous expenditure of public money which, in my view, should mean that whatever profits accrue from development of this trade ought to go back to the public who have invested that money.
The argument put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and supported on the benches behind him that the State ought not to interfere and take over this work—their objection to the expenditure of public money on the provision of public houses in face of the enormous expenditure of public money on the provision of estates and that that money is accruing site value—has no validity at all. It is my honest and firm opinion that when public money is poured into new developments, the only right to accruing profit from such developments, representing an enormous increase in assets and site value, belongs to the public who put their money into it.

Mr. Gower: Does not that argument equally apply to old towns? Is not public money poured into old towns as well and would not the hon. Member's argument be equally valid for taking over the trade in all towns?

Mr. Hargreaves: I would agree if there were means to do so, and in past years the House has had an opportunity of dealing with that matter. That site value should accrue to the public who created


that value, and the House should take steps to see that that was done.
Another point which should be made is that if this Bill is such a good one and if State management undertakings and State management schemes are bad and their effect bad on the people, why on earth does the Bill not apply to Carlisle? A number of hon. Members have said that Lord Woolton made the intentions of the Conservative Party very clear, but proof of that is not forthcoming, and indeed it has been denied. Apparently the only people who knew the intentions of Lord Woolton were the brewers who published the statement that was repeated from the Dispatch Box this afternoon and which appears in the brewers' monthly bulletin:
Lord Woolton said: 'Bring new town areas into line with the licensing laws in force for the rest of the country '.
Lord Woolton, of course, said nothing of the kind. The statement was repeated a few minutes ago, although time and again it has been denied this evening. I should have been glad at the General Election of an opportunity of seeing an authoritative statement of that kind, because in Carlisle such a statement would have represented a very great electoral asset and I should have been very glad to use it.
The fact is that State management in Carlisle has gone out of local politics. Irrespective of political parties, there is a general acceptance of the scheme. Though it may not be generally known in the House, there is within Carlisle itself, and at Maryport and other areas, actual competition with the State scheme. There are available other choices to the public which are alternatives to the State management scheme.

Mr. Remnant: Will the hon. Member say how many other on-licences there are in Carlisle outside the State management scheme with similar licences?

Mr. Hargreaves: I think the hon. Member has been given that information previously, but I will give it again. It was within the city of Carlisle that he wanted to know—

Mr. Remnant: Carlisle only.

Mr. Hargreaves: The number of houses in Carlisle?

Mr. Remnant: Licensed houses.

Mr. Hargreaves: The number in Carlisle is 53. The licences that are not under State management—obviously if the hon. Member wishes to take into account clubs. I cannot make those figures available to him—are the Crown and Mitre Hotel, the County Hotel, the County Hotel bar, the Silver Grill—[Interruption.]—all within the actual city of Carlisle. I am trying to answer the question. In addition there are the theatre bars. I would not be certain of this, but I think there are three of them. I am trying to answer as fully as possible the question which was asked.

Mr. Fisher: It would seem to me that there are no public houses, in the accepted sense of the word, in that list. The hon. Member is simply reading out a catalogue of hotel bars and theatre bars.

Mr. Hargreaves: I am answering as fully as I can the question asked me in relation to Carlisle. In Maryport there are actually public houses in competition, as there are in other districts immediately adjacent to Carlisle. I am reminded that in Workington there are public houses in competition with the State managed inns.
I am not asking for additional expenditure for the profits that are made out of this scheme, but it is fair to say that criticisms have been made here today which are ill-informed, and we ought to get the facts right. It is true that within nine years of the commencement of the scheme, the whole of the Treasury outgoings were repaid, and since that time about £3½ million has accrued to the Treasury. I think it fair to say that the State managed licensees brew their own beer, and of course every other variety of bottled beer and draught beer. Bass, for example, is available.
They also have a separate system for making mineral waters and other soft drinks and the stock includes proprietary brands of spirits, and so on. They are sold at lower prices than rule in the competitive places in Carlisle or in the rest of the country. Notwithstanding that, they make the profits to which I have referred, and give a higher standard of working conditions than is available to most of the people employed in the industry. For instance, there are super-annuation rights not usually available to people employed in such places.
Another argument against State management which was made this afternoon was the suggestion that the present scheme gives no help and no impetus to local patriotism in its management. There, again, there is a good deal of completely ill-informed criticism. I took up the whole question with the previous Home Secretary, and I want to suggest that, in the Carlisle scheme and in adjacent schemes, the local interests represented are the county council, the city council of Carlisle, the licensing committees and the urban and rural district councils of the adjacent areas. All these are fully represented, especially the interests, which I regard as being very important indeed, of the city council of Carlisle.
Further, the local advisory committee, which is responsible under the Home Secretary, has appointed, with his consent, one member of the committee whose name is generally accepted by all the churches in the district. Another person who has been appointed is actively associated with social welfare in the city, so that it can fairly be said that every possible local interest is represented on the local advisory committee dealing with the Carlisle scheme.
I think these points of criticism that have been made are fairly answered by the information that is available to me, and I suggest that the real danger existent in the proposals behind this Bill is the one to which I drew attention at the beginning of my remarks—the danger that the Bill places opportunities in the hands of interests which have proved to be, in many areas, inimical to decent social life. These interests have been considered very important indeed in the short lifetime of the present Parliament, although hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that the King's Speech contained no reference to this legislation.
To many of us, it is ominous that, while Measures of very great importance, including the Budget, the National Health Service Bill and the Iron and Steel Bill have had to be postponed, there has been brought forward a Bill of this kind, with the obvious implication that it is meeting a demand, a demand which I have attempted to prove comes from quarters which have been associated for a very long time with the work of one political party in this country. Therefore, I hope

this Bill will not receive its Second Reading.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: I do not know the full circumstances concerning the gentleman, and the incident connected with him, to which the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) has referred, but, quite unconsciously, in relating these matters to the House, the hon. Gentleman deployed a large part of the arguments in favour of this Bill and against State trading in public houses.
What he did not seem to realise—and perhaps it was because he approaches these matters with some degree of prejudice—was that the incident which he related concerning a public house being built in an area subsequently developed as a housing area shows, of course, considerable foresight and private enterprise by the brewers. They are, of course, far more capable of exercising an independent judgment and the proper perspicacity on these matters than is possible, we believe, under schemes of State management. Quite clearly, we believe that private enterprise provides the best service to the public in this field as in a great many others.
Any debate which raises these licensing questions covers a very wide field. Today's debate has been a great opportunity for the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) to ride his favourite hobby-horse, the Tied House Bill, and a great opportunity for the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) to give us his customary speech in favour of temperance, the speech which we hear so often and for which we never lose respect. The hon. Member for Ealing, North, drew attention to the fact that some £700 million a year are spent on beer, but I am willing to wager that when the Bill for National Health Service charges is introduced, and which many have the effect of siphoning off, perhaps, £10 million of that money and requiring it to be spent on medicine instead of beer, the hon. Member for Ealing, North, will vote against that proposal.

Dr. H. Morgan: What a rotten argument.

Mr. Marlowe: It is a good enough argument to provoke the hon. Gentleman.
I want to deal first with the question about a mandate for introducing the Bill. I really do not see the case against us on that. We have made it perfectly clear in every Election programme which we have put forward since the war that we are in favour of private enterprise and against State trading. Nothing could have been said more clearly than that. It is quite impossible to cover every aspect of that policy. One cannot detail in an Election programme every minute form of trading to which one is referring, but, as I say, we have made it perfectly clear that we are in favour of private enterprise and against State trading.
This animosity towards the 1949 Act is only another example of that. It is a clear example of our disapproval of this particular form of State trading. On the question of whether we really gave notice of our intentions, I was rather surprised to read in a letter in "The Times" on 29th January—which I think was really the foundation for this charge—that we had not given proper notice of our intentions in this matter. The letter was from Lord Astor and Mr. Seebohm Rowntree, and it finished with the following sentence:
When the late Government enacted the Measure"—
that is, the 1948 Act—
the Conservative opposition expressed no desire to upset the policy then adopted.
I cannot imagine how a noble Lord and another gentleman who have so deeply interested themselves in this problem could have put their signatures to such a wild misstatement, because it was abundantly clear throughout the passage of the Bill that we were bitterly opposed to it. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who was Home Secretary at the time, will recall that on Second Reading and day after day during the prolonged Committee stage of the Bill upstairs we on this side of the House strongly opposed the Bill, and again on Third Reading. The right hon. Member for South Shields will recall, I am sure, the tussle which took place then on that very issue. I am not going to quote the enormous number of occasions when reference was made to it on the Committee stage upstairs. It is enough to refer to the Third Reading.
I remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman who was then Under-Secretary

of State for the Home Department, the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger), said on Third Reading:
May I turn to Part 1 and the State management proposals? In the Second Reading debate the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) told us he regarded them as the thin edge of the wedge of nationalisation coming by stages. That suggestion, or allegation, was repeated very frequently by a number of hon. Members during the sittings which we devoted to this part of the Bill in Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May, 1949; Vol. 465, c. 268.]
That reinforces my recollection that time and again throughout the Committee stage we made it perfectly plain that we were bitterly opposed to Part 1 of the Bill and we did everything in our power with our limited number in the Parliament elected in 1945 to prevent Part 1 becoming part of the Bill.
The present Home Secretary, right at the start of his speech on Third Reading, said:
We on this side of the House oppose this Bill because it still applies to top-heavy machinery of centralisation to an essentially local and different problem. This is its cardinal error,…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May, 1949; Vol. 465, c. 273.]
How Lord Astor and Mr. Rowntree came to say after that that the Conservative Opposition at the time of the passage of the Bill expressed no desire to upset the policy then adopted I confess I am at a loss to understand.
I want to deal, very shortly, with one other aspect of this matter which was referred to by the right hon. Member for South Shields. He made an attack on the Tory Party in this matter and said, in effect, that the natural deduction must be that the Tory Party were virtually in the pay of the brewers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad I have correctly expressed the sense of the right hon. Gentleman. He and other hon. Gentlemen have said that must be so because the Tory Party and the brewers always walk hand in hand with each other.
What hon Gentlemen opposite do not understand, because they approach these matters with such prejudice, is that the only reason they walk the same path is that both the brewers and the Conservative Party have a mutual confidence in private enterprise. Because one happens to find two people going in the


same direction there is no need to assume any sinister motive and that one is necessarily in the pay of the other.
I thought it was a little unworthy of the right hon. Member for South Shields to suggest that the only inference could be that the Tory Party were in the pay of the brewers. In connection with this I do not know whether it was the right hon. Gentleman who said, but certainly hon. Members have said, that whether or not that be so could be refuted by the publication of party accounts. That is the allegation that has been made.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have always been what I call dictator-minded because they believe in the one-party State. They have exactly the characteristic of a dictator who likes to follow what everybody does with his money, where subscriptions come from and who pays into what particular society in order that they may be branded so that when the time comes they can be marked down as the first to go up on the lamp-posts. It is a characteristic of the spirit of the dictator, with which the Socialist Party is so imbued.
I take the view that what funds people subscribe to free associations of their own choosing are their own affair, and I see no reason why they should be called upon to provide that information to another political party. I have no wish to trace what money hon. Members pay into their own party funds; it seems to me to be entirely their affair. I am not in the least concerned, nor do I wish to know who pays for their Election expenses. So long as they keep within the law of the Representation of the People Act it seems to me entirely a matter of their own concern. I regard with great suspicion—

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: The hon. and learned Member seems to be developing the argument that it is not to the public interest or of any concern to the public as to whence funds of a great political party are derived. Does he believe that that principle applied and was correctly applied in the case of the Nazi Party in Germany, which was financed by all the great industrialists of Germany, including probably the brewing interests, and the creation of which ultimately resulted in the last war?

Mr. Marlowe: I must apologise to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) for the time which his hon. Friend has made me take out of the time he will have to speak. What the hon. Member has said is a complete reinforcement of my point. It is a heresy hunt he wants, to find where money comes from so that the hon. Gentleman can mark down who is a party member and who is not—exactly the Nazi mentality.
I would say, in conclusion, that even if it be so, I have never understood the sinister deduction which hon. Members draw. Supposing it be true, suppose that they prove up to the hilt that the brewers subscribe to the Tory Party, why should they not do so if they believe that the Conservative Party is the party which will defend the free enterprise in which they believe? Why should they not subscribe to the party?
Hon. Gentlemen opposite defend many aspects of the trade union movement. I make no complaint that the trade union movement subscribes heavily to Labour Party funds. That appears to me to be perfectly proper and legitimate. I do not mind whether they publish the accounts or not. What I object to is the sinister deduction that merely because two people or two organisations happen to have a common belief in freedom, a common belief in the liberty of the people and in the right of the people both to choose what they drink and who they vote for, they are to be branded as hostile to the community.
I say that if the brewers support the Tory Party they are perfectly entitled to do so, and there is no deduction to be drawn from it except that we are both upholders of freedom and private enterprise.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. G. Lindgren: Quite early in the debate one of my hon. Friends raised the question of interests in the subject which we are discussing, and whether some Members ought to vote. I therefore declare my interest at once. Mine is a consumer interest. I am the only Member who has spoken in this debate who is a citizen of a new town and a prospective consumer of the refreshment likely to be provided in that town. Therefore, I speak as having a consumer interest, not a financial one.
Even at the risk of getting at loggerheads with some of my own friends, I think the Tory Party is acquitted in respect of bringing forward this Bill and in respect of the statement that it was part of their policy. I think that any sensible person, knowing the Tory Party's association with the liquor trade, ought to have anticipated that this would be one of their first Measures. There is nothing sinister in it; it is just a natural sequence of Tory affiliations and policy.
I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe). There is no need to get cross about this sort of thing. Let us face the facts. There are interests behind politics. The interests behind the Tory Party are the drink trade, the Federation of British Industries and the Central Landowners' Association. It is equally true of the Labour movement. There are interests behind us—the trade union movement and the Co-operative movement, and the choice for the country is: which is best for the country—the brewers or the trade union movement?
I know where my interests lie. I am not ashamed that the trade union movement has a great effect upon the policy of our party. I do not see why hon. Members opposite should get so touchy when we state what is a fact, that the brewing interests have a great deal to say in the policy of the Tory Party. One only has to look at the "Sunday Express" last Sunday to see the financial interests of right hon. and hon. Members opposite in the trade itself. Even if it is only a question of self-interest, that applies.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary said that there was no direct consultation. Well, I think that is quite true; there was certainly no need for it. I agree with the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Fisher), and the hon. and learned Member for Hove; they are quite entitled to say that the Tory Party is absolved of any question of breaking away from a pledge at any time. This is just what was to be expected, and it is really what we ought to oppose.
The Government have said that we on these benches are trying to force something on to people in new towns. Our answer to that is that that is exactly what

the brewers are trying to do, and it is what this Bill does. It forces on to the people of a particular area what the brewers want—not what the people want. When I interrupted the hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), I said, "I am a resident of Welwyn Garden City. The tied houses at Welwyn Garden City are Whitbreads. I do not want Whitbreads beer. I want somebody else's." The hon. Gentleman said, "You can go somewhere else," but I do not want to go somewhere else. I want to go to a pub in my own town and have a drink and play billiards with my own pals. I do not want to go to the "local" where, the hon. Member for Barnet informed the House, he had met me, away from my town. The Tory Party are, in this Measure, depriving me of my liberty. Why should I not drink the beer that I want to drink in the public house where I want to drink it?
Hon. Members opposite engage in propaganda which is really unfair of them. As to the management of State pubs, it was not intended that there should be a State brewer. There is no provision in the Licensing Act, 1949, for a brewery—

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that in the Committee stage of that Bill we had a lot of discussion about this, and there was considerable argument about the right hon. Gentleman taking powers to create a State brewery.

Mr. Lindgren: I stand corrected; but as far as my recollection goes—I was not present during the Committee stage of that Measure—there is no power in the Act for the provision of a State brewery.
But even suppose there were. I accept it from the hon. and learned Gentleman because he takes a great interest in these matters, and he was on the Committee and I was not. Even if there were, they could provide their own brew and they could also provide other beers. It is impossible for any publican at any free house anywhere to provide any and every beer that it is possible for a customer to ask for, but what can happen and what generally does happen in the free houses which are still left today is that the main general beers are sold plus a local brew which meets with the general wishes of the area. It is the Tory Party and this


Bill which are denying the citizens of the new towns their right to drink their own beer in their own pubs.
Nobody from the opposite side of the House mentioned the people who really matter. They talked about the brewer: but the brewer does not make a public house in the real sense of the word. The fellow who makes a public house is either the manager or the tenant, and whether it is a good or a bad "local" depends not on the brewer—although he makes a difference—but on the manager who carries out the work. The tenants and the managers of licensed houses in this country do not get a fair deal from the brewers.
The hon. and learned Member for Hove —because of his interests in these matters —ought to look at the agreements which the tenants of tied houses have to sign. I have never seen more iniquitous agreements than those which these men are called upon to sign.

Mr. Maudling: Does the hon. Member argue that the tenants and managers would prefer State management?

Mr. Lindgren: Most certainly I do. I am a trade unionist and I know something about victimisation, and I know what some Tory employers like to do to some of us—even Tory officials inside an industry like the railway. I have never seen so much fear as exists amongst the managers and tenants of public houses. There are a number whom I have met who call one aside and whisper in one's ear that the "Bing Bill," as they call it, is their charter, and they are looking forward to its going through. They cannot say what they want to say because of the fear of victimisation. They say, "Give us security."
Why, in fact, do not the brewers give the tenants of public houses the benefits of the Rent Restriction Acts? If they did do so there would be a degree of security and the tenants and managers of tied houses would really be able to feel a little more free, with a degree of security which they do not enjoy at the present time.

Mr. Marlowe: Does the Co-operative Party give the benefit of the Rent Restriction Acts to the managers of Co-operative stores?

Mr. Lindgren: Their managers do not get "turfed out" in the manner in which tenants of public houses do.
We oppose this Bill because it interferes with the freedom of the consumer and with the freedom of the servant of the public who provides for it—the tenant or manager of the public house. Mention was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing)—if the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock) will finish his cross-bench conversation I will go on.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon.

Mr. Lindgren: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch and others have mentioned the question of the provision of food; but the brewers are not concerned with the provision of food. If any food is provided in a public house in which there is a tenant, who stands the racket whether the public house wins or loses; who has to bear the initial cost of the provision of cutlery—all the glasses and plates—and stand the risk of loss? It is not the brewer but the tenant who is in the public house.
That is the reason why there are a number of public houses which do not provide the victuals they should provide. The trade is becoming a vast monopoly. There used to be something to be said for it in the old days. There were, in parts of this country, the old family brewers. Round about them they had perhaps one, two or three houses. But the family breweries have gone; they are being absorbed into a great monopoly —a monopoly which uses its power not for the good of the community.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said we were interfering with the liberty of the people in suggesting that there should be State managed pubs. Who is interfering with the liberty of the people? The brewers. Before the 1949 Act they had already decided who was to go into each garden city or each new town. They had already divided them up—Whitbreads in here, MacMullens in somewhere else. Benskins in somewhere else. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), smiles as though that is not true, but it is true.
There was no question of competition, no question of freedom. The people of


those areas were to have the type of licence which was to be provided by a particular brewer decided not by the people, not by the development corporation, not by a licensing committee, not by the licensing justices, but by the brewers meeting and sharing out the contracts of the various new towns which were to be established.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: I was not smiling at the argument. I accept it. I was merely saying to my hon. Friends that this was similar to the Co-ops and certain trade unions who parcel out certain areas for themselves.

Mr. Lindgren: There is a great deal of difference between the social effect of trade unions, such as the Transport and General Workers' Union and the Municipal and General Workers' Union, dividing an area in scope of membership and influence, on the one hand, and the brewing trade doing so, on the other hand. This is a difference; the trade union movement is part of this Labour movement; the brewers are part of the Tory Party.

Mr. Osborne: A trade union worker in a certain area has, therefore, no option about joining either one union or another and he is restricted in the same way as the hon. Gentleman claims the public are restricted in the case of drink.

Mr. Lindgren: The hon. and learned Member for Hove was exceedingly good in curtailing his speech so that I could rise at the right time, and I do not want, therefore, to be drawn along the line suggested by the hon. Member for Louth and so be discourteous to the Under-Secretary of State, who is to reply.
I have had some association with the Garden City movement. I have given 25 years of my life to the building up of the popularity of new towns and garden cities. What happened, for example, in Letchworth? It was decided, wrongly, I think, that they should not have any pubs. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), would not agree with me when I say I think it was bad for the Garden City movement at the time. It added to the idea that those associated with Garden Cities were long haired men and short haired women who chewed nuts

and wore sandals. The decision to deprive the town of a licence caused difficulties for the Garden City movement.
As soon as the local option was decided —no pubs in Letchworth—the brewers had a ring of five of them on the outskirts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Private enterprise."] Of course; private enterprise. The only people who broke the rules were the Tory Party, and the only wet place in Letchworth is the Tory club. It has a licence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite cheer; it shows the tie-up between the brewers and the Tory Party.
But this matter went further. They considered, in Letchworth, whether there were to be licensed premises at a later stage, and the matter was to be decided by local option. When they were having their local vote, the friends of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, and the publicans at the ring-side joined together—publicans and teetotalers—to prevent the local vote from being cast in favour of licensed premises in Letchworth itself. I do not think that sort of thing is for the good and it was to avoid it, as my right hon Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said, that the scheme was introduced.
Let us look at our experience at Welwyn. We started at Welwyn, seeing that Letchworth had made a mistake in not having any licensed places, with a free house, "The Cherry Tree." The Home Secretary said there were no special circumstances in new towns. There are some very special circumstances in new towns. A new town starts from scratch. It is not possible to build a big public house—sometimes that is done, but generally it is not possible—at the beginning of the development of a new town. Generally, it is a small one. It is not possible to provide a house of the type and size that ultimately is required for the population when the town is developed. In the early stages a small one is required.
At Welwyn we had a free house. Because the town developed we wanted a larger public house, and the Garden City Company at that time—it was a private enterprise concern to which I pay high tribute for their work in developing the Garden City movement—were short of capital, and so, to build a public house, they had to go outside. They could not,


of course, get help from a Public Works Loan Board. So they had to go to the trade to get their public house. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Why not? As soon as they did, there were strings attached. Whitbread's provided the capital, and they said only their beers could be sold. What is worse, they attached that condition to bottled beers as well. The only people who seem to get in are Guinness and Mackeson—the stout people. They seemed to get in there. They are names associated with the Tory Party, too.

Brigadier H. R. Mackeson (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to be fair. I do not own any shares in the company which bears my name, and only one share in the holding company concerned.

Mr. Lindgren: The hon. and gallant Gentleman reminds me that Guinness, and the other firm to which we referred, do not own houses. One can go into any house at any time anywhere and buy their wares if one wants to. Why not? Why should we not all be free in that way? I suggest to the Home Secretary that the tying of new towns to certain houses is wrong.
Certain Members associated with new towns on the Tory side of the House have spoken today. There was the noble Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson). We all respect her general attitude to local problems, but she referred to the question of opposition in Hemel Hempstead to the 1949 Act. That is fictitious opposition—very fictitious. I could not put it to the test by inviting the noble Lady, as I should like to do, to come on a tour of the public houses in her division, because there are some there to which I could take neither my wife nor her because they are insanitary and ought not to be there. They do not even provide a living for the landlords. Indeed, the landlords themselves have got to go outside for part-time jobs. That is not good for the trade and is not good for the public.
That was the reason why we were suggesting provisions in the original Act to regulate the position in the new towns. There was no suggestion at any time that all the licences of the existing houses should be taken away and run by a local committee. It was the intention, and it

was put in the Act, that those that were worthy to remain should remain, and that those that were not should be displaced, and that some other organisation should come into their place.
The hon. Member for Barnet referred to Hatfield. There are similar conditions in places in Hatfield to those I have mentioned in Hemel Hempstead. There are some houses within his area which are not really worthy of being public houses in the sense that they do not provide social amenities. What happened in Hatfield? The publicans got together years ago, long before there were any new towns and before de Havillands thought of coming there, and they started dividing up the public houses, as to which should go out and which should stay in, taking the compensation from a fund which they created.
The public were not consulted as to which pub went or which stayed. It was all decided by the brewers. Although there was compensation, the brewer got it and the tenant did not, but in fairness I must say that the brewers did their best to put the fellows who come out into other public houses. I suggest that local feeling, in Hemel Hempstead, Hatfield, Welwyn Garden City, Stevenage or elsewhere—I know the area—is disinterested.

Mr. Maudling: Does the hon. Member suggest that he knows more about the local feeling in the public houses in my constituency than I do?

Mr. Lindgren: I would not challenge the hon. Gentleman about the tours he may make, but I mix among the local lads in his constituency. I know that when the petitions were got up many of the tenants were not in sympathy with them, but they supported them because if they had said "No" it might have meant their being out on their necks, like the farm workers, and they would have had nowhere to go. I see an hon. and gallant Gentleman smiling, but he does not know what it means to be put out on the streets. One has to know that before properly appreciating what the loss of a home means.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: I was smiling at the hon. Gentleman's reference to farm workers.

Mr. Lindgren: There are not only tied public houses but the tied houses of the farm workers.

Mr. Osborne: rose

Mr. Lindgren: I know the hon. Gentleman's point about railway tied houses. I fought the railways very hard on it for a long while, but at least they did not turn people out on the streets within a week or two. In my constituency farm workers with six or seven children have gone out into the street and their furniture was put into a barn. [An HON. MEMBER: "How long ago?"] Recently, about a couple of months ago, and this is still being done on the basis of a certificate. We ought to have these questions settled.
The Home Secretary said that we had accused the Tory Party of making a gift to the brewers. So they are. We are spending millions of pounds of the nation's money in developing new towns. What gives value to a public house? [An HON. MEMBER: "Not the State."] It is the number of customers in its immediate vicinity. In the new towns the State has spent millions of pounds on the provision of houses, roads, water mains, sewers and all the facilities that go to make up a town.
The State has created the value. Why should the brewers walk away with the profits? That is the sort of nationalisation the Tory Party like—let the State take over the heavy responsibility and the work which is unprofitable, such as the provision of roads and buildings, and let private enterprise come in and take the custom of the people who are in the new towns. That is the kind of profit-making out of public enterprise which the Tory Party likes.
I suggest that, if we have provided millions of Treasury money for new towns, the nation should get back some of the profits which the community creates. The Home Secretary said that the monopoly value of the licence makes some contribution to it, but it does not. What happens? When a new house is sited the Customs and Excise officers look at it, decide in the light of the immediate area what additional licence shall be paid, and there is one payment. But the new town develops, over 10, 15 or 20 years.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but mono-

poly value is assessed on the estimated trade over the period of years for which the licence is given. If it is for seven years, the monopoly value is estimated on the trade over the whole seven years.

Mr. Bing: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to be fair will he also mention to the House that the Royal Commission of 1931 advocated the removal of the monopoly value on the ground that it was unduly favourable to the brewer?

Mr. Lindgren: My point is that a single payment is unfair and that there should be an extended one. In the areas of the hon. Members for Barnet, Hitchin and Hemel Hempstead the new towns corporations, by the expenditure of Treasury money, are bringing to them thousands of people who are adding value to the licensed houses there. The Home Secretary said that it was saving money not to buy those houses now. Surely it is sensible to buy those houses before their value has appreciated, thereby getting not only the existing value but also the value subsequently created.
In spite of what I know will be an eloquent appeal by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, and in fairness to the British people, who ought to have the beer that they like in the house that they like for their social amenity, I ask the House to grant them their freedom of choice and the right to do what they like in the way in which they would like to do it. Do not tie the British public to the brewers. Do not tie the hands of the development corporations or anyone else in that manner.

9.34 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I do not suppose that any Under-Secretary would willingly choose a licensing debate for making his first major speech from this Box. It is a rather technical subject and at times tends to be a little acrimonious.
During this debate there have been a good many arguments which were not altogether relevant to the Bill before us. For example, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) argued that if we have provided millions of money for new towns—and I think he also mentioned new drains—why should we not get


some of the money back? May I point out that one puts beer into people and not into towns or drains, and in fact those who will consume the beer in the new towns will come from the old towns and to that extent will be lost to those areas. However, I do not base any argument on this point. I make it only to show that a good deal of loose argument has been used.
A good deal has been said today on the question of the mandate of the Conservative Party to bring forward this Measure. It is necessary to look briefly at the history of the matter in order to put this in its proper perspective. The Measure before us, in effect, repeals the greater part of the Licensing Act, 1949. I do not think it is denied in any part of the House that that Act was not in any way part of the policy of the Labour Party; it was not mentioned in any of their Election literature in 1945, nor, indeed, even in the King's Speech immediately before its introduction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) made a quotation, which it is important to reiterate, from the Second Reading debate on the Bill before it became the Licensing Act. On 14th December, 1948, referring to the Act which it is now proposed in effect to repeal, the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr H. Morrison) said:
It really is an incidental matter, a by-product of the new towns policy, as to how the licensed premises should be dealt with. …This is not such a startling Bill as all that. Indeed, that is why this Bill was not in the King's Speech. But then not every Bill was in the King's Speech. Quite frankly, we did not regard this as one of those exciting Measures which ought to occupy a place there."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1133.]
If that applied to the original Act, it applies with even greater force to this Bill, which, after all, is only repealing a part of that Act.

Mr. Bing: rose

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I cannot give way —I was kept late by the hon. Member for Wellingborough, but I do not complain.
When that Act was being passed, it was stated quite specifically by the Conservative spokesman in another place that it was our intention to repeal the Act as soon as we got an opportunity. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) suggested this afternoon that not

only were we lacking a mandate, but that there was something in the nature of an intrigue in order that the Bill should now see the light of day. If I may repeat his words as I took them down, he said that at the time of the last Election there was an arrangement between some obscure official in the Central Office and Mr. Percey—the secretary, I think, of the Licensed Victuallers' Association. Those were the right hon. Member's words
The suggestion was that there had been some quiet undertaking which was not brought to the light of day and that the whole of these proceedings are tainted by that and are to some extent improper. That suggestion was not worthy of the right hon. Gentleman, particularly as he went on to say that this matter had not been published; and I think that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) said that it was published only to a section of the population.

Mr. Bing: rose

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am not referring to the hon. and learned Member's speech today, but to an article in "Tribune." Many other hon. Members opposite have followed that up, taking the right hon. Gentleman at his word and suggesting that this was disgraceful. I do not really think the researches of the right hon. Gentleman were very thorough. I did not expect this point to be raised and so I did not come armed with any ammunition, but merely had recourse to the Library of the House of Commons. I have looked at the files of the newspapers, and here is the file of the "Daily Telegraph." This is the "Daily Telegraph" for 4th October, 1951, and on page 7 I see quite plainly set out in the middle of the page:

'REPEAL STATE LIQUOR TRADING.'

The Conservative Party if returned to power would strongly favour the repeal of the State management provisions contained in the 1949 Licensing Act, said Mr. Leonard R. N. Percey, general manager of the Licensed Victuallers' Defence League for England and Wales at the League's Council meeting at Portsmouth "—

Mr. Bing: Does he speak for the Conservative Party?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman wait a moment? The statement goes on:
The Conservatives stated in reply to a request to clarify their attitude, that they had


consistently opposed the principle of State trading in liquor.
Mr. Morgan Phillips, Secretary of the Labour Party, had replied that when the Election manifesto had been approved at Scarborough he would send the League a copy. The Liberal reply said that the party believed it was a matter which should be left to the individual conscience.
I submit to the House that there was something which might at any rate have put the machinery of Transport House into motion and they might perhaps have made some inquiry on that.
But this is not the only excerpt. I find in one of the evening newspapers, the "Evening Standard," a similar notice. I am afraid I have not been able to get it for this occasion, but I understand there was quite a feature in the "Morning Advertiser," and I gather that that is the favourite breakfast diet of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson). Presumably, one or two members of the Labour Party must have had some inkling of the Conservatives' promise in this respect.
The fact of the matter is that all this is really put up to try to produce some quite different effect. The right hon. Member for South Shields, in the course of his speech, began by saying that this Bill secured that every house erected in a new town shall be a tied house. That was the opening of his speech, and he did not seek to qualify that at all. I think that anyone listening to those words would have understood that that was, in fact, one of the expressed provisions of the Bill until, when he was challenged in the course of the debate, he was driven to admit that the Bill in fact does no such thing. All the right hon. Gentleman was able to say, rather lamely, I think, was that the practical working of the Bill means that every house will be a tied house.
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is being altogether candid with the House in this respect because, after all, in the original legislation which this Bill seeks to repeal a house will be a tied house in the sense in which it has been used throughout this debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members sitting behind the right hon. Gentleman, that is to say, those who are not teetotal and whose view is not that drinking should be abolished, have argued in favour of greater freedom.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough argued very strongly that what he wanted to see was greater variety of beer available to those who dwell in these new towns. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman sitting beside him, when taken with the other suggestions, was to the effect that we were taking away from those who dwell in the new towns the right to choose their own beer. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are."] Of course, we are doing nothing of the kind. If there ever was an absolutely tied variety of house, it is the house in the Carlisle area.

Mr. Lindgren: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to be unfair. The fact is that the State house is not tied to a particular beer. The manager is free to buy beers of other breweries, and he is not tied to any particular one.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: As I understand the matter, in all the public houses in the city of Carlisle it is so.
We have been challenged on the score of the urgency of this matter. It is quite true that this is a relatively small matter in the whole field of our economy: but there was included in the Estimates for the current year a sum of £1 million to be expended on furthering the 1949 Act. That sum was not included by the present Government but by the former Government. The position now is that a sum of under £1,000 out of that £1 million has been spent.
As we know, however, many of the new towns are about to make a rapid development. When they do so, it will become urgently necessary to pursue whatever policy is to be pursued regarding the development of public houses. So a decision had to be taken whether we were to go ahead with the scheme of the 1949 Act or with the scheme to which we as a party were pledged. Rightly and properly, as I think, we decided to take urgent action to repeal such part of the 1949 Act as refers to this matter, and to substitute for it this Measure.
I think it is worth making the point that the amount of money involved here is quite considerable. There is no question merely of walking in and picking up all the money provided by the community by developing new towns and their drains. It means having to spend large sums of money on compensating for the acquisition of some 189 houses in England and


Wales, and in due course further sums for building new houses to meet the needs of the population.
The opposition to this Bill has been based on two grounds which I do not think have great relevance to the Bill itself. One is what I might call the idealistic view, expressed by the hon. Member for Ealing, North—the teetotal view. The other is the ideological view expressed by a number of hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves), in favour of State enterprise. Both of the views are, fundamentally, more in the nature of prejudices than arguments. It is not every hon. Member, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Ealing, North, who can be quite clear on either of them, and indeed the two lines of objection are to some extent mutually destructive.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnet pointed out, if we are believers in State enterprise and we want to make a success of it, to that extent we should not encourage people to go into public houses and encourage drinking. That is a genuine dilemma. Now, I put the same dilemma in another way, and in a way which I am certain hon. Members on both sides of the House feel it. The drink trade is a trade of a kind in which we should not wish the community as such to indulge. This is not a feeling which I have myself, but there are a good number of Members in this House, and certainly many people outside it, who feel that very strongly.
I make that point to show that the moral issue is not all on one side, but, whatever our political views may be, we have strong moral feelings about what ought to be done, and we do take exception to some hon. Members opposite reading us lectures on this score. I wish to assure the House that, as a party, we feel that there is a moral issue here, and that it is best resolved in the way which we propose in this Bill.
May I now say something about the practical issue, that is, the issue which is raised, perhaps, in the best way in the letter which appeared in "The Times" of 29th January, over the signature of Lord Astor and Mr. Seebohm Rowntree. There are only two practical arguments on the merits there put forward, and only two which have been put forward this evening.
First, it is suggested that this Bill, or perhaps I should say the original Act, has the effect of stopping the pushing of intoxicants by advertising, and secondly, that it is desirable to carry forward a further experiment in State management of the drink trade. As regards the question of pushing the sales of drink, I submit to the House that there is really nothing in that argument. So far as advertisements are concerned, they will continue, whether we have the 1949 Act or any other Act. The advertisements of the brewers will continue in exactly the same way. There is nothing in the Act which is being repealed which in any way restricts the brewers from advertising their wares. So far as I know, the publicans themselves have only one form of advertising, and that is a good house, with good amenities, and, if possible, an attractive inside. I think all of us would wish that form of advertising to be continued.
If there is nothing in the argument that the Act to be repealed prevents the pushing of the sale of beer, there is even less in the suggestion that the right place to carry out a further experiment in State trading in alcohol should be made in the new towns. So far as compensation is concerned, the amounts which will have to be paid in the case of the new towns is every bit as large as would have to be paid in any other case. Indeed, it is obvious that, as many of the public-houses will have to be built, because they cannot be bought as going concerns, the actual cost, on the whole, will probably be higher.
There is a very good reason indeed why an experiment should not be made in these particular cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) made the point that there are the strongest local feelings about the advent of these new towns. They do not fit easily into their new surroundings. In a sense, new towns are like new boys at school. They have got to settle in. But if one starts them off by marking them with some special form of new clothes, or what one will, it makes it much more difficult for them to settle in and may perhaps warp their characters permanently.
New towns are quite unsuitable subjects for an experiment of this kind. The Carlisle district has a population of about 125,000, whereas the new towns have


only from 10,000 to 80,000. I believe that these are dangerously small units for this purpose. We all agree that we wish to improve the new towns, but their standard can only be improved by proper supervision of a kind which all sides of the House think necessary. Even the area of Carlisle, which is more than twice that of the new towns, is not large enough for the purpose. That being so, it is at least questionable whether these are suitable units for the purpose.
The real difficulty facing us is that of getting proper planning and proper efficiency in development. We on this side believe that the way is not through State enterprise, but through the method proposed in this Bill, which we think will lead to the kind of public house that is suitable for people all over the country, and therefore I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Ede: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the one specific question—?

Mr. Glanville: On a point of order. Would the right hon. Gentleman, if such he be, or hon. Gentleman—I know he is not dishonourable—consider an experiment on the lines of the Working Men's Club and Institute Union, where we have our own brewery, buy our own beer and pay our own way?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That 'now' stand stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 306: Noes, 266.

Division No. 34.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Glyn, Sir Ralph


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Godber, J. B.


Alport C. J. M.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Gough, C. F. H.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Cole, Norman
Gower, H. R.


Anstruther-Gray, Maj. W. J.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Arbuthnot, John
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Grimond, J.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Cranborne, Viscount
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Baker, P. A D.
Crookshank, Capt. R. Hon. H. F. C.
Harden, J. R. E.


Baldock, Lt -Cmdr. J. M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Crouch, R. F.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Banks, Col. C.
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Barber, A. P. L.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Barlow, Sir John
Cuthbert, W. N.
Harvey, Air Cdre, A. V. (Macclesfield)


Baxter, A. B.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Davidson, Viscountess
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
De la Bère, R.
Hay, John


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Deedes, W. F.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Heald, Sir Lionel


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Heath, Edward


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Donner, P. W.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Birch, Nigel
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Bishop, F. P.
Drayson, G. B.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Blank, C. W.
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Boothby, R. J. G
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bossom, A. C.
Duthie, W. S.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hollis, M. C.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Erroll, F. J.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Braine, B. R.
Fell, A.
Holt, A. F.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Finlay, Graeme
Hope, Lord John


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Fisher, Nigel
Hopkinson, Henry


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
Horobin, I. M.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Fort, R.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G T
Foster, John
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Bullard, D. G.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Bullus, Wing Cmdr. E. E
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.


Burden, F. F. A.
Gage, C. H.
Hurd, A. R.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Carson, Hon. E.
Gammans, L. D
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Cary, Sir Robert
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Channon, H.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.




Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Mellor, Sir John
Snadden, W. McN.


Jennings, R.
Molson, A. H. E.
Soames, Capt. C.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Spearman, A. C. M


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Speir, R. M.


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Morrison John (Salisbury)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Kaberry, D.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Keeling, Sir Edward
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Stevens, G. P.


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Lambert. Hon. G.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Storey, S.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Oakshott, H. D.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Leather, E. H. C.
Odey, G. W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Studholme, H. G.


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Summers, G. S.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Lindsay, Martin
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Linstead, H. N.
Osborne, C.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Partridge, E.
Teeling, W.


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Low, A. R. W.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Pitman, I. J.
Tilney, John


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Powell, J. Enoch
Touche, G. C.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Turton, R. H.


McAdden, S. J.
Profumo, J. D.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


McCallum, Major D.
Raikes, H. V.
Vane, W. M. F.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Redmayne, M.
Vosper, D. F.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


McKibbin, A. J.
Renton, D. L. M.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Maclay, Hon. John
Robertson, Sir David
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Robson-Brown, W.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


MacLeod, John (Rose and Cromarty)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Watkinson, H. A.


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Roper, Sir Harold
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wellwood, W.


Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Russell, R. S.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Markham, Maj. S. F.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Scott, R. Donald
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Marples, A. E.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wills, G.


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Shepherd, William
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Maude, Angus
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
York, C.


Maudling, R.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)



Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Medlicott, Brig, F.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Mr. Herbert Butcher and Mr. Drewe




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Dodds, N. N.


Albu, A. H.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Donnelly, D. L.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Burke, W. A.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Burton, Miss F. E.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Callaghan, L. J.
Edelman, M.


Awbery, S. S.
Carmichael, J.
Edwards, Rt Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Ayles, W H.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Champion, A. J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Baird, J.
Chapman, W. D.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Balfour, A.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Ewart, R.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Clunie, J.
Fernyhough, E.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Cocks, F. S.
Field, Capt. W. J


Bence, C. R.
Coldrick, W.
Fienburgh, W.


Benn, Wedgwood
Collick, P. H.
Finch, H. J.


Benson, G.
Cook, T. F.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Follick, M.


Bing, G. H. C.
Cove, W. G.
Foot, M. M


Blackburn, F.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Forman, J. C.


Blenkinsop, A.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Blyton, W. R.
Daines, P.
Freeman, John (Watford)


Boardman, H.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H,
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Gibson, C. W


Bowden, H. W.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Glanville, James


Bowles, F. G.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Gooch, E. G.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Brockway, A. F.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Deer, G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Delargy, H. J.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.







Grey, C. F.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Slater, J.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Manuel, A. C.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Hamilton, W. W.
Mayhew, C. P.
Snow, J. W.


Hannan, W.
Mellish, R. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hardy, E. A.
Messer, F.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hargreaves, A.
Mikardo, Ian
Sparks, J. A.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Steele, T.


Hastings, S.
Monslow, W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hayman, F. H.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Morley, R.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Herbison, Miss M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (Lewisham, S.)
Swingler, S. T.


Hobson, C. R.
Mort, D. L.
Sylvester, G. O.


Holman, P.
Moyle, A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Houghton, Douglas
Mulley, F. W.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hoy, J. H.
Murray, J. D.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Hubbard, T. F.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oldfield, W. H.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oliver, G. H.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, M.
Tomney, F.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oswald, T.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Padley, W. E.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Paget, R. T.
Usborne, H. C.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Viant, S. P.


Janner, B.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wallace, H. W.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pannell, Charles
Watkins, T. E.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Pargiter, G. A.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Parker, J.
Weitzman, D.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Paton, J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Peart, T. F.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
West, D. G.


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Popplewell, E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Porter, G.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Keenan, W.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Kenyon, C.
Proctor, W. T.
Wigg, G. E. C.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pryde, D. J.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


King, Dr. H. M.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wilkins, W. A.


Kinley, J.
Rankin, John
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Reeves, J.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Williams, David (Neath)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Rhodes, H.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Lewis, Arthur
Richards, R.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Lindgren, G. S.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Logan, D. G.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Longden, Fred (Small Heath)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


MacColl, J. E.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


McGhee, H. G.
Ross William
Wyatt, W. L.


McGovern, J.
Royle, C.
Yates, V. F.


McInnes, J.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Shackleton, E. A. A.



McLeavy, F.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Short, E. W.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Shurmer, P. L. E.



Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — LICENSED PREMISES IN NEW TOWNS [MONEY]

Considered in Committee of the whole House under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Orders of the Day — Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision as to the grant of new justices' licences, and the removal of justices' licences, for or to premises in new towns in England and Wales and as to the grant of new certificates and the renewal of certificates in respect of premises in new towns in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise any increase, attributable to provisions of that Act imposing functions on development corporations in relation to committees constituted under that Act, in the sums which under section twelve of the New Towns Act, 1946, may be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing or paid into the Exchequer.—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (FERTILISERS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the Present Session to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of contributions for relief of occupiers of agricultural land in respect of expenditure on fertilisers, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money's provided by Parliament—

(a) of contributions for relieving occupiers of agricultural land of a part of the expenditure which they would otherwise have incurred in respect of fertilisers acquired before or after the passing of the said Act, being contributions made in accordance with a scheme securing so far as practicable that the making of contributions in accordance with the scheme in respect of fertilisers of any kind will not relieve occupiers who acquire fertilisers of that kind of more than one-half of the expenditure which they would have incurred in respect thereof if there had been no provision for the making of those contributions; and
(b) of any expenses of administration incurred by a Minister for the purposes of the said Act of the present Session, or of any scheme made under that Act.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (FERTILISERS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(POWER TO MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS IN RESPECT OF FERTILISERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SCHEMES.)

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out "with the approval of the Treasury."
This Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) and myself is, in a sense, an exploratory one. I know it may be argued against me in this matter that the words to which exception is now being taken are words which do, in the normal course, appear not infrequently in Bills which direct the expenditure of public money.
The House was left in no doubt whatever on Second Reading that, on the whole, there is a considerable body of opinion supporting the intention of the Bill, even if my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), in his very able speech, pointed out that there were some other methods by which the same object might very well be properly and more economically secured. I am very sorry, but I understand that my remarks have not been audible. That is certainly through no fault of mine, so I will recapitulate. I shall make my points succinctly and clearly. I am told that I cannot be heard throughout the Chamber because of the noise that is going on round the doors. I will do my best.
In Clause 1 there is, of course, the reference to which exception is taken—about the approval of the Treasury to the action of the appropriate Minister. In Clause 2 a scheme is to be dealt with exclusively by the appropriate Minister. Then I find that so far as England, Wales and Northern Ireland are concerned he is to be the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries; but in Clause 5 we find that indemnities are given against expenditure by a Minister of the Crown. I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is taking a careful note of this because I believe it to be an important point. The result is that there is complete un-


certainty on who has the directive powers; who is the responsible Minister; who should be questioned about this matter; who should deal with this matter and who should organise it.
That is not the principal difficulty. In his speech on the Second Reading the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said—and I hope he will correct me if I am wrong—that there was a review of this matter in November, the subsidies were determined in July and then there was a later review when it was found that, due to a wholly unexpected rise in the cost of fertilisers, particularly phosphatic fertilisers, the agricultural community would have to bear an additional and unforeseen burden of about £9 million.

Mr. R. T. Paget: It is difficult to hear what the hon. Member is saying. We cannot hear his very important observations owing to the noise from the doorway.

The Chairman: I hope that hon. Members below the Bar will keep quiet.

Mr. Hale: The doors have been continuously open for the last 10 minutes. I do not think anyone can say I am whispering to the Committee or responsible for any lack of audibility. It may be that I am responsible for my lack of clarity, but that is another point. It is rather like talking in a tube station at the present time, and it is not quite what one is accustomed to in a Committee of the House of Commons.
It was said that the sum of £9 million had arisen in respect of the increased costs of fertilisers and it was necessary to consider how to deal with this—whether to take it in in a full price review and withdraw the subsidy or introduce a special Bill for the purpose—and it was decided to introduce a special Bill. A little later on the right hon. Gentleman said that prices went up again and £1 million suddenly popped in and it was decided to slap on another £1 million and make it £10 million, which is a useful round sum.

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member is going beyond his Amendment. It is simply to leave out "with the approval of the Treasury," which is quite narrow. I hope he will confine his remarks to that point.

Mr. Hale: I suggest—

The Chairman: I hope the hon. Gentleman will confine his remarks to the Amendment.

Mr. Hale: I am trying to keep the issue narrow, but this is the first Amendment before the Committee tonight and there must be some hon. Members here who were not present on Second Reading. I am trying to make the initial point quite clear in a few sentences, because hon. Members want to know what it is the Treasury may have to approve.
This is quite a serious point on which I shall respectfully press you, Sir Charles. The whole point about the Amendment concerning the Treasury is that there is nothing at any stage in the Bill which implements what the Minister told us was his intention, and nowhere is there any limit put upon the amount to be expended, except a fantastically wide limit of up to half the total cost of fertilisers, both nitrogenous and phosphatic.
Perhaps I may explain, because I respectfully suggest that there can be no doubt about this once the facts are clear. The Minister referred to phosphatic fertilisers only and made it quite clear that the scheme would relate only to them. He made it quite clear that although the Bill refers to a half, he is giving only a third for the time being, He said "approximately a third" and gave the figures. He is giving nothing on nitrogenous fertilisers at all for the time being.
We have a Bill before the Committee which quite clearly gives a general authority for an expenditure which could conceivably amount to not less than £30 million, of which the Minister says he is contemplating using £10 million. The Explanatory Memorandum suggests that the cost in the next financial year will be in the order of £13 million, but that will be due to the fact that certain payments are to be ante-dated. This is the point: of what are the Treasury to approve? Where do the Treasury come in? What does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest about this? Who makes the claim? At what stage do the Treasury have to approve the matter? How do they signify that approval? What happens if they do not agree?
In the Bill as drafted the Minister is entitled to come here and say at any stage, first, "I now propose to give £10 million for phosphatic fertilisers."


He can come later and say, secondly, "I now think there is a case for nitrogenous fertilisers." Do the Treasury have to approve that? If they do, that is a complete surrender of the functions of the Minister of Agriculture. Surely it cannot be argued that the question of a decision about what fertilisers have to be subsidised is a matter for the Treasury.
There is a much more serious point. Now that the Budget has, like Easter, become a movable feast—[Laughter]—I am sorry that my hon. Friends are treating the matter with some levity. There is nothing in the Bill to provide any low limit on the amount of the subsidy. If the Treasury has to approve they can stop the subsidy being paid at all. There is no minimum limit in the Bill. There is merely a power on somebody's part, with somebody's approval, either in collaboration or otherwise, to give a sum which is not specified in the Bill, which we have no method of computing and on which no figures were given by the Minister on Second Reading—no figures at all.
At no stage in the Second Reading debate did anyone say to the House what it might cost if this Clause were fully implemented and a subsidy given on half the cost of all the fertilisers consumed by the farming community. This is indeed a matter of real importance, because late in the debate we were suddenly told that subsidies would be given on 10 cwt. sacks and—

The Chairman: The Amendment merely deals with whether the approval of the Treasury shall be included or not.

Mr. Hale: I will limit myself to that point, Sir Charles. At what stage do the Treasury have to approve. Do they approve each batch of 10 cwt. sacks, or do they approve the whole scheme, or at what stage do the Treasury come in? This question of the cost of administering the service is involved in the Amendment. May I tell you what is to happen, Sir Charles?
We have got a position in which groups of farmers, groups of allotments holders, or individuals make application for subsidy and, furthermore, we have got a position in which the Minister, before the House of Commons gives its consent, is telling people to keep their receipts in case the House gives its consent, and so is going back on the

principle he and his party talked about so much before, and is introducing retroactive legislation whose effect dates back to July.

The Chairman: I have warned the hon. Member several times that he is going wide of the Amendment. If he continues to do so I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Hale: I am obliged, Sir Charles, but I thought that I was making my point legitimately within the terms of the Amendment. I beg to submit it to you. You know the respect I bear you, and that I would not argue unduly about any Ruling of yours, but surely we are entitled to ask at what stage the Treasury comes in? Does it handle this? Does the Treasury have to approve a scheme? How does it come in? I think that if I read the Clause to you, Sir Charles, you will agree that I have not been irregular in this matter. The last thing I wish to do, anyway, is to take an unnecessary time about a Bill which has received a fair measure of support.
The Clause says:
Contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament may be made, in accordance with a scheme or schemes made by the appropriate Minister with the approval of the Treasury…
So my point is this. The Minister has fairly said, "I am going to allocate £10 million." That £10 million, as I understand it—and I will sit down and let him intervene at any moment he chooses, for an explanation now may shorten the the debate—will be notionally allocated by the Treasury for this purpose. Economically speaking, it will be notionally allocated. Under the present laws of economics somewhere there will be ripples—on a metaphysical basis—or there will be physically created some slight mental disturbance, about the effect on a block of gold in Fort Knox, but it will not be paid out then. When will it be paid out? This is a serious point, and, I think, an important point.
Has the Minister surrendered the whole of his discretion in the matter to the Treasury? Does he submit all applications to the Treasury? Does the Treasury say, "We approve of this. You cannot go on with that?" At what stage does the Treasury come in?
In view of what you have said, Sir Charles, and in view of my anxiety not


to delay the Committee, I shall sit down and give way to the Minister, reserving the right to make further observations later if the Minister's remarks are not satisfactory, having in the meanwhile roughly to start with covered the position in general.

The Minister of Agriculture (Major Sir Thomas Dugdale): The Committee always listens with the greatest attention to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), but as I listened to his remarks on this occasion it seemed to me that he was arguing against his own Amendment throughout the greater part of his speech, because he was arguing that the Minister of Agriculture should in fact spend large sums of money without reference to the Treasury, and yet in the terms of the Amendment it is proposed to leave out the words "with the approval of the Treasury"—

Mr. Hale: Yes, but if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will look further down the Paper he will find that there are Amendments which would enable the Minister to act with the approval of Parliament, which is precisely what we have in mind.

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, but at the moment we are considering this Amendment, and I think that the hon. Gentleman's confusion arises really in regard to the two functions that this Bill is actually designed to implement, and which I tried to explain to the House on Second Reading in the last part of my speech. I said:
To sum up, the Bill is designed, first, to implement the undertaking which I gave to the House on behalf of the Government on 29th November, 1951, to ask for the necessary legislative authority for the subsidy on phosphates…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 249.]
That is the first point. The second point is, that we should put on to the Statute Book an enabling Bill to enable schemes made for a period of five years to be carried through. It seems from the wording of the Amendment that the hon. Gentleman was confused on the one hand by schemes which can be made under the Bill as an enabling Bill, and on the other by the first scheme which I announced as far back as November, and which this Bill is designed to implement by providing the legislative authority. As soon as we have the Royal Assent to this Bill,

then immediately the first scheme will be laid before Parliament. It is not at this stage or this evening that we shall discuss what is actually in the first scheme.
10.30 p.m.
On the specific and detailed point, the hon. Member will agree that, since the expenditure of public money is involved, the Minister of Agriculture, whoever he may be, must obviously consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it is the invariable practice for this form of words to appear in the appropriate sections of Bills giving power to make schemes for subsidies and contributions. If these words were not in the Bill the Treasury would lose financial control of expenditure generally. I am certain the hon. Member will agree that one of the main functions of the House is to see to it that public expenditure is safeguarded in the best possible way in our legislation.

Mr. Hale: I am grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way; I am interrupting only for a moment. That is the point on which I want some information. It may very well be true that there is Treasury control of public expenditure, but if Parliament authorises specific expenditure, why is it necessary for someone at the Treasury to have final control of any kind? What becomes of our powers? Is it really, as has been submitted, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, through his senior civil servant there, can now say, "It is all very well Parliament deciding to spend money, but we are not going to allow you to spend it now—figures have gone against us in the last few weeks"?

Sir T. Dugdale: I will not go so far as that, but it is absolutely right that any Minister introducing legislation, when financial considerations are concerned, should have the approval of the Treasury in putting forward particular definite proposals.
To return to this Amendment, the hon. Gentleman asked me at what stage approval was required by the Treasury. The stage is when any particular scheme is introduced. That was the confusion in the hon. Gentleman's mind; he was confusing the schemes, and we are thinking about only one scheme that will be introduced after this Bill receives the Royal Assent, and the enabling part of


the Bill that enables Parliament, in their wisdom, to pass further schemes during the next five years. I hope that with this explanation the hon. Gentleman will see fit—

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, may I pursue a point to which I made reference a few days ago about the relationship between Departments and the Treasury? It is certainly perfectly appropriate, indeed it is common form, that the words "with the approval of the Treasury" should appear in the Bill, but that approval is usually sought in connection with the amount of money which the Treasury has to find. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, it is a scheme itself which lies within the province of the Departmental Minister that is going to be vetted and approved or disapproved by the Treasury and not only the amount of money.
The contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament may be made, with the approval of the Treasury, in accordance with the scheme or schemes made by the appropriate Minister. The point at which the approval of the Treasury occurs—the Subsection is italicised because it is part of the Money Resolution—means that it is the particular scheme or schemes, which ought to fall entirely within the control of the Department of Agriculture, and which some junior official will first of all [Interruption.] The right hon. and gallant Gentleman can shake his head as much as he likes, but I have had too much experience of this. The fact of the matter is that the relationship between the Treasury and the administrative Departments has become wholly archaic.
If the Government wanted to save money, they could sack hundreds of officials of the Treasury who are now doing the same job twice. First it is done inside the Department by the people who know all about it, almost invariably within the Estimates approved by the House of Commons or within the powers conferred by Statute. And then, before the poor Departmental Minister can move hand or foot, the schemes themselves—not only the amount of money but the actual concrete, physical schemes—have to be considered by some obscure person in the Treasury; examined not only as to their financial implications but as to their technical merits. When that is

done, if the official in the administrative Department agrees, then all goes through. If it does not go through, it has to come up to the Minister and the Minister has to go cap in hand to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in nine cases out of 10 the Chancellor does not understand it and stands by his own officials.
Here is a situation in which a common form use of language will give the Treasury complete administrative control over the schemes which the Minister of Agriculture ought to make.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: On a point of order, Sir Charles. Is the right hon. Gentleman speaking on this Amendment or merely giving an explanation?

The Chairman: It is quite in order. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to show why the approval of the Treasury should not be required.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman poses as an authority on China, but about Britain he knows very little indeed. I am now speaking specifically about the Amendment, and as the hon. Member has not even got the Bill before him, he is speaking with even more blankness than usual. I am asking that the language should be so amended that the Minister should be under the jurisdiction of the Treasury only in respect of the amount of money involved, and not in respect of the schemes for which he himself ought to accept direct administrative responsibility.

Sir T. Dugdale: May I reply to the right hon. Gentleman? One is always surprised at different revelations that are made in the House of Commons but, whatever else the right hon. Gentleman may be, I think we all agree that he was a most forceful Minister during the period he was in office. It is a most curious argument to hear him use, that he would accept the ruling of some very junior member of the Treasury with regard to any scheme he might put forward.

Mr. Bevan: I know that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is so much weaker than I am that I was trying to defend him.

Sir T. Dugdale: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am absolutely satisfied that I have complete control over the scheme and the only part for


which I want the approval of the Treasury is for the amount of money which is involved.

Mr. Bevan: The Bill does not say that.

Mr. Paget: Perhaps I might put it rather differently from my right hon. Friend. It may be that the present Minister is so strong and knowledgeable that he will be able to dominate the Treasury, but we are not passing this Bill simply for this Minister. I appeal to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell us that he will reconsider the wording of this Clause and confine the Treasury to what is their business, the expenditure, leaving it to the Minister of Agriculture to have the final word as to the form in which the scheme is to be made. After all, it is only in a very indirect manner that this scheme calls for the expenditure of public money.
This is not the scheme, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) should realise this, which involves any additional payment to the farmers whatever. It is merely that instead of their receiving this amount of money when the prices are settled, they receive the same money, in a different form, as a part-payment of the price of a fertiliser. As to the total amount of money which the Treasury pay or which the farmer receives, it makes no difference. It is an adjustment between farmers, but it is not an adjustment of any money which the Treasury have to find. Since they are not affected in their pocket by how much is to be in a scheme and how much is to put in a price review, their interest in this is very indirect, to say the least.
Surely, the Minister should keep control, on behalf of agriculture, of these schemes which he is putting forward. The whole basis of the Act of 1945 is financially a bulk purchase arrangement. The nation arranges to buy the products of the farmers on an agreed basis, based on costs. Here is one of the costs. The costs are being paid at one point instead of another point. Surely that is the Minister's business and not the Treasury's business, which is what we consider important and which the farmers in the country regard as important. It should be under the control

of the Minister of Agriculture, who, I think, the farmers trust to understand their problems, and who was brought up against their problems.

Mr. Hale: My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) made a concrete suggestion, which I wish he would put to the Minister of Agriculture. If the words, "with the approval of the Treasury," were put back one line and came after the words "may be made," the Subsection would read:
Contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament may be made, with the approval of the Treasury, in accordance with a scheme or schemes made by the appropriate Minister…
That clearly meets the point and clearly falls within what the Minister says comes within his duties.

Mr. Paget: I feel that is an admirable suggestion. I do not think any of us would ask the Minister immediately to commit himself to a matter of drafting. I would ask the Minister to tell us that he will consider the Amendment and on Report bringing forward an Amendment which gives effect to what, I think, is his intention and which he will feel is the sense of the Committee regarding this matter. We are not wishing to waste time or spend our time on many Divisions. Cannot the Minister meet us to that extent and say he will consider moving the position of these words which will entirely effect what we desire? Surely, that is a reasonable thing to ask?

Mr. Bevan: I am sorry, but I must resist because right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen will recollect this is not merely a matter I am raising in connection with this particular Bill. I have in mind the whole relationship between the Treasury and administrative Departments. I consider, as I have said, that this is entirely archaic and Ministers ought not to be in bondage on this matter all the time.
10.45 p.m.
Hon. Members will see from Clause 4 precisely what this power of the Treasury is. The Clause states:
(1) A scheme under this Act may restrict the amounts of contributions in any manner and make the payment of contributions subject to any conditions,…
About the amount I agree at once. One cannot have the spending Departments roving at large spending sums of money


without consulting the Treasury. I accept that as a very necessary financial discipline.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: We have had too much of that in the last six years.

Mr. Bevan: The answer is that the hon. Member who has made more than one speech allegedly in defence of agricultural interests is now going to put these schemes under the control of Treasury officials. Let him read what the Clause says:
(1) A scheme…may…
(a) specify the kinds of fertilisers in respect of which contributions may be made;
Does the Committee seriously suggest the Treasury should itself investigate what kind of fertilisers are to be used? Is that reasonable? The amount of money to be spent on fertilisers, yes.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) knows it is silly.

Mr. Bevan: The Clause goes to to say,
(d) provide for requiring applicants to give facilities for the inspection of fertilisers to which applications relate, to give information required to verify applications, and to produce documents required for that purpose;
All the schemes, in their specific physical details can, under the statute, be reviewed by the Treasury and prohibited. Surely that is Bedlam. It is an excuse for the proliferation of vast numbers of busy little people at the Treasury; and indeed that is exactly what happens. And there is no bigger piece of political humbug than for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to demand economies by the spending Departments when he himself is the biggest spendthrift in Whitehall because he is continually employing people to do the jobs the administrative Departments themselves are already trying to do.
Therefore, I suggest the Amendment I have proposed gives the Treasury all the powers it needs to control the amount of money and gives the Minister all the elbow-room he needs to get on with the job.

Mr. I. Mikardo: It appeared to me that the Minister had been impressed by the arguments put to him. We all know him to be a reasonable man, and I had the impression he was feeling in his heart of hearts that

the argument put so cogently and moderately was in fact a valid argument. I thought he had revealed himself when be ended his last observations by saying very fervently that, "I am satisfied the schemes will he under my control." It is generally a fair rule that if a man replies to an argument not with an argument but with a decision, he is not very sure of himself.
I have the feeling that the failure—I do not say this in any unkind sense—of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to make a specific reply to the arguments which have been put to him about the difference between Treasury control over expenditure and Treasury control over the technical details of the scheme and instead to say that he was quite happy about the situation indicated that he might not be altogether happy with the situation.
Of course, as other hon. Members have pointed out, even if he has some agreement with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer which covers him in this matter, that could only be an agreement in which he said to his right hon. Friend, "Never mind what the Bill says, you and I have agreed to behave differently from what it says." Even if he has that agreement, it is not binding unless it is written into the statute.
There can be no question at all that as the Bill is drafted a situation could arise in which the Minister of Agriculture had virtually no control over a scheme made under this Bill, and that, in fact, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, a less accommodating, more dogmatic and more narrow-minded Chancellor than we have at the moment, and one less well disposed than the present one to the present Minister of Agriculture, might well come along and say to the Minister, "I am not going to allow you to decide whether the scheme shall apply to nitrogenous or phosphatic fertilisers, or vice versa. I will decide that, and you will be no more than the office boy in the administration of the scheme."
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider between now and the next stage of the Bill what can possibly be lost by his taking the words
with the approval of the Treasury 
from their present place—not eliminating


them—and putting them one line and two words earlier, with the result, as has already been pointed out, that the Treasury will have, as it is entitled to have, full control over the monies that are spent and the Minister himself will have, as he is entitled to have, full control over the technical details of the scheme.
What could possibly be lost by such a change? Will he not say, as my hon. Friends have appealed to him to say, that between now and the next stage of the Bill he will discuss the matter with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor and see if he cannot come some way to meet us in this matter?

Sir T. Dugdale: I think the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) really misunderstood what I said on the first occasion, because there is nothing at all alarming about this particular subsection. It is in common form for this kind of legislation and does no more than provide that proper consultation shall take place, that approval for money shall be given by the Chancellor and that any money that is spent under the Bill must appear in the Departmental Estimates at the end of the year.
I perfectly understand the wider issue raised by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), because I know his serious and anxious concern about the powers of the Treasury as far as other Government Departments are concerned. There may be occasions on which I shall appeal to him from this side for his earnest support if I have any doubt at all that my Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, is finding itself in any way under the thumb of the Treasury.
I am satisfied that under subsection (1) we can administer the schemes in what we think are the best interests of the agricultural communities, and that the only approval the Treasury gives us is in the amount of money to be spent on a particular scheme.

Mr. Thomas Williams: I know that subsection (1) is in common form. It has been so in every agricultural miscellaneous Bill I have been responsible for introducing since 1945. It may very well be, as some of my hon. and right hon. Friends have said, that perhaps we place too much power in the

hands of the Treasury. I am not at all sure that if we transfer the words "with the approval of the Treasury" back to line 2 instead of line 3 it will make a lot of difference.
May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether, between now and the Bill finding its way into another place—because if we are to complete all stages it cannot be done automatically—he will undertake to examine the possibility of transferring the words in the Amendment to the second line of subsection (1), as was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan)? If he would undertake to examine that possibility perhaps we could make some progress.

Mr. George Brown: Before the Minister replies to my right hon. Friend, may I say that if the Bill had been brought in in a reasonable way we would have had a chance of dealing with it in that way? This Bill is brought in for all its stages with only three Parliamentary days—two of them by accident —between Second Reading and the other stages. There is no good reason why we should be asked to take all the stages tonight, with an undertaking to examine this matter between now and the Bill being dealt with in another place. If it is not dealt with there we shall have no opportunity of returning to the point. There is no good reason why the Minister should not halt the progress of the Bill at the conclusion of the Committee stage tonight.
There is no representative of the Treasury here at the moment, and the Minister says he is sure that he is not under the thumb of that Department. He thinks he has full control over the schemes. We should be entitled to ask the Treasury whether that is so. In addition to the Chancellor, there is a Financial Secretary, and a Minister of State. I do not know what he is doing, but we ought to have one of them here if the Government are anxious to push this Bill through. The Minister told my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) that if he did not find things were working out and he found himself under the thumb of the Treasury he would ask him to help. But the Minister will not. We have had experience of it, and we do not do it.
The Minister does not meet the case, and I feel that the words "with the ap-


proval of the Treasury" should be made to apply clearly to the money. It is a valid point, and we ought not to have it refused. The Minister has given no answer to it at all, and has not shown at any stage that he sees an answer to it. We now have the Treasury with us, but the Financial Secretary cannot pick up this point in a whispered conversation with the Minister. That being so, I wonder if it would be in order for me to move to report progress to enable the right hon. Gentleman to brief his colleague, because I think we ought to press for consideration of this point now and not leave it to another place.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: It is quite obvious that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to give his approval for the spending of money he must know what that money is. I think the wording is as it should be for the Treasury is going to limit the expenditure.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I do not think any hon. or right hon. Gentleman on this side would accept that view. I would suggest that even the Minister would argue that the Treasury would have to have a close examination of what the money is going to be spent on. Really the Minister must go half way to meet us on this point. I would support what my hon. Friend has suggested, that if the Minister cannot accept the Amendment he has got to be able to say, "I will look at it again."
This is a financial matter. We have a right and a duty to settle it in this Chamber. I should have thought there would be no harm in this Bill in leaving out the words "with the approval of the Treasury." After all, the money that is to be spent under the Bill is going to be negotiated with the farmers in the spring of each year. At the annual price review there are long discussions between representatives of the Government and the farming industry and at the end of these discussions the Government have got to take a decision, and up to now it has always been an agreed decision, as to the money to be put in the pockets of the farmers in the ensuing year.
If the amount of money to be spent under this Bill should remain at £10 million per year, that will mean £10 million less that the farmers will get under the prices for their scheduled com-

modities. The Minister will agree with me in that. If it is £10 million, it is £10 million less the farmers will get under the guaranteed prices for the commodities listed in the schedule to the Act of 1947.

The Chairman: Very likely that is true, but it is going far beyond the Amendment we are discussing.

Mr. Fraser: With the greatest respect, Sir Charles, I am trying to demonstrate to the Committee that the amount of money to be spent under this scheme cannot be fiddled about by the Treasury from time to time throughout the year. Parliament is asked to approve each year the amount of money the Minister will seek to have filtered through to the pockets of the farmers, and whatever money is spent under this Bill will be deducted from what the farmers get under the Schedule to the 1947 Act.
What I am suggesting is that in this case there is no justification for the inclusion of the words "with the approval of the Treasury"; but if we are going to have the words at all, it makes no difference where they are at the present time. The Treasury should not have to come into the Ministry with technical proposals on what will be done in this scheme. It is not for the Treasury to decide whether phosphatic or nitrogenous fertilisers will be subsidised. Surely that is a decision which can be taken only by the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland—the two Ministers of Agriculture. Surely that is a decision which can be taken only by these two Ministers with the advice which they can get from their advisors who are skilled in giving advice of this kind. These are not matters to be decided by the Treasury.
I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been convinced. Indeed, it is obvious that he, personally, has been convinced by the arguments which have been adduced in the discussion. I appeal to him to tell us that he is not happy about the wording of the Subsection and that he will think about it again and will defer the Report stage, if necessary, in order that he may reach a different decision.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I hope the Minister has been impressed by the arguments which have been put


to him on this point. I urge him to reconsider the matter, because I do not think he was treating the Committee with respect when he said what he did say just now. Now that the Financial Secretary is present, I hope we shall have a clear statement from the Government about what is their intention if they persist in leaving these words in their present place.
I think the situation is even more serious than was indicated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and my hon. Friends. They pointed out that if these words were left in their position in line 3, the Treasury would be able to control every detail of every scheme put forward under the Bill by the Minister of Agriculture, a system which would lead, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, to quite unnecessary duplication. The situation is, however, even worse than that. The Treasury will not only have the power to do that; if these words are left in their present place they will have the duty to do it.

Mr. Bevan: They take that view.

Mr. Fletcher: That is why I hope the Financial Secretary will tell us what is the intention, because if the Government persist in their determination to leave the words in their present place, it can only mean that they not only intend the Treasury to have the power to check every detail of every scheme but to have that duty and to be compelled to carry it out. There will thus be Parliamentary justification for the hordes of officials about which my right hon. Friend complained and which is so inconsistent with the Government's protestations of economies.
We are entitled to know exactly where the Government stand on this. Do they desire these words to remain in order that the Treasury shall have this control and in order that the Treasury shall duplicate everything which the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland do in their Departments? Unless that is the deliberate intention of the Government, there can be no justification for the Minister's refusal to accept the Amendment.
As has been said, it is no use the Minister saying this is a common form.

It would equally be common form if the words "with the approval of the Treasury" were re-inserted in line 2 and taken out of line 3. If that were done, the Treasury would have perfectly proper financial control over the amount of the contribution, but they would not have the duty or the right to criticise and duplicate all the detailed work which will have to be done under the Bill in dealing with all the technical details of the schemes.
I think my hon. Friends have raised a serious matter of principle. I hope the Government have been impressed by the reasonableness of the arguments which have been adduced and, now that the Minister is fortified by the assistance of the Treasury representative, that he will be able to tell us what is the Treasury view and what is the purpose of his refusal, so far, to accept this very sensible and very reasonable Amendment.

Sir T. Dugdale: I should like to answer straight away the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) and the appeal made to me by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I am perfectly prepared on a matter of this sort to reconsider it if I think that we should get any progress or advance by that reconsideration but, on advice, I am assured that if we transfer these words to the second line—that is, to after "may"—the only result will be to strengthen the Treasury's powers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I shall explain why. It would mean that the Treasury would have to approve each individual payment of subsidy to each farmer. The Treasury control would be tighter than under the present form of words, which are in the recognised form.

Miss Jennie Lee: The Minister says he has been advised. Well, we are very grateful to him for taking advice during the discussion—advice which he thinks will be final and authoritative. But if he maintains the position that acceptance of this Amendment would strengthen the hold of the Treasury, can he meet the point of view put forward by the Committee by making his own suggestion for an Amendment to solve the difficulty in our minds? I would ask the Minister whether he has not been convinced by the argument put from this side of the Committee.
I would ask him also to consider the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin). The hon. Gentleman said something which crystallises our point of view. He said that the Treasury ought to have some knowledge—a little knowledge—of the purpose for which it was allocating money. Is not that an incredible point of view? Surely, if the Treasury is to have knowledge, it ought to have full and adequate knowledge?
What sense does it make that we should have a Departmental Minister advised by experts, a Minister responsible to the House of Commons for spending monies allocated by Parliament to the best advantage, and that then we should have also a kind of half knowledge provided by Treasury officials? There could be some conceivable sense in that relationship if the Treasury were dealing only with one Departmental Minister, but are we really seriously accepting a position in which the Treasury is to have a little bit of knowledge of agriculture, of education, of housing, of teeth and spectacles, and much more that could be mentioned, and, perhaps, with its half knowledge, do more harm than if it had no knowledge at all?
I suggest that the purpose of the Treasury is to carry out the plan decided by the entire Cabinet which allocates to the spending Departments what each is to have at its disposal. I can see no sense at all and no efficiency at all in saying the Treasury has got to come in with a little knowledge to criticise Departmental Ministers and their advisers, who, presumably, have full knowledge.
11.15 p.m.
Hon. Members opposite claim to be the party of big business. I should like to see the business man who would bring in a manager, or a person with a small knowledge of his particular subject, into a position where he has to distribute his attention over a hundred different fields, and say that he believes that from that source he is going to get the best guidance or advice. If the Minister cannot accept the wording of the Amendment, and wishes to maintain the position that the change to the second line would strengthen the hold of the Treasury, he might help us by telling us how we can get a proper division of labour, and allocation by the Cabinet of the amounts to

be spent by each Department, without the Departmental Minister either being worthy of his job or being got rid of and somebody else put in his place.

Mr. Bevan: We have made some little progress, and have got from the Minister some information from his advisers on the effect of the suggestion we have made. I view the advice with the utmost scepticism, because I have had similar advice before. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that if the words "with the approval of the Treasury" are put where I suggested it would increase the Treasury control, because the Treasury would have power to decide on which beneficiary the contribution should alight. That is complete nonsense.
If hon. Members will look at the language, it says—
for relieving occupiers of agricultural land of a part of the expenditure which they would otherwise incur.
In other words, the scheme itself can provide for the way in which the monies are paid out, so the Treasury would not need to indicate or identify the individual beneficiary. The scheme itself would provide the way in which the monies would be paid out, and at that stage the Treasury could divest itself of the right to determine who the particular beneficiary would be. The advice given to the right hon. Gentleman is biassed advice, probably from the Treasury itself, which still wishes to keep this ancient power. That is the whole difficulty.
What we are trying to do—and at this stage we ought to have the advice of the Financial Secretary; we do not want his presence to be entirely barren, and we assume he has come into the Committee not merely for the purpose of adorning the Government Front Bench but also of guiding the Committee. I should like to ask him whether he considers that the power conferred on the Treasury—he cannot answer me if he does not listen—by this Subsection (1) does not, as a consequence of Clause 4, enable the Treasury to tell the Minister of Agriculture what kind of fertiliser he should subsidise. I should like to know. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]
I do not want to embarrass the hon. Gentleman, but I should have thought that if the Treasury regard these powers as so important they ought to be able


to explain to the Committee what they are. The only interpretation we can place on them, and the only interpretation they bear, is that when a scheme is drawn up by the Minister it is submitted to the Treasury, who then proceed to vet the scheme in every particular. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has pointed out, they would be under an obligation to do so. Thus we shall have a respectable gentleman who has spent all his life reading figures acquainting himself with the quality of fertilisers in order that he may advise the Minister whether a particular kind of fertiliser ought to be subsidised for a particular purpose.
The Committee may take it from me—I speak from experience—that that is not a caricature of what happens. It happens on every Estimate, not only on Bills. The Minister comes to the House of Commons to obtain from Parliament a sanction to spend certain money for a certain purpose. He is limited by that amount. But that does not prevent the carrion crows of the Treasury picking at this bone and that. It is the most wasteful form of administration I have ever known.—[Interruption.]
Hon. Members have not got my point at all. I shall pursue this on every Bill. I shall try to secure that the Treasury shall be armed with the powers it ought to have, the powers to control the amount of money, but that the Ministers and the Departments technically trained for the purpose shall have the absolute and exclusive right of determining the technical uses of that money. It is only sensible. What has happened is that there has grown up over the last 100 years a body of interfering officials who make a living out of making a nuisance of themselves to every spending Department.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is the poor, first victim of a long campaign, but I have not selected him because I have any malevolence against him; on the contrary, I have a most benign attitude towards him. Nevertheless, he ought in fairness to the Committee to have a look at my suggestion, because it arms the Treasury with the powers it needs and gives him the freedom he ought to have.
Surely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has pointed out, it is quite unfair to expect us to go through all the stages of this Bill tonight, because in that case the Minister will not be able to redeem any promise that he may make in the Committee stage without the connivance of another Chamber; and we ought not to depend on that. I do most earnestly hope that the Minister will expedite the passage of his Bill by promising to give further consideration to the suggestions that have been made.

Sir T. Dugdale: As I have said, I appreciate very much the anxiety which is felt by the Opposition that we should not be tied on financial commitments by the wicked Treasury. I would be perfectly prepared to look again into this position if I were satisfied that an improvement could be made on the lines suggested by the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends. But the more I look into this particular sub-section, the more I come to the conclusion that the existing form of words does, in fact, meet the anxiety, so far as it is possible to do so. I hope the Committee will agree with me in my decision.
I hope the Committee will appreciate that the arguments which have been advanced this evening go far beyond this Clause and this Bill. If we cannot agree on the right form of words, then I hope we may come to a decision in the Division Lobbies. All I can say from this Box is that, as far as this Bill is concerned, I am satisfied that the anxieties of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are not realities, and I am satisfied that I as Minister of Agriculture have full powers to implement any scheme made under this Bill.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: When the Minister speaks of subsequently altering the wording of this Clause, I suppose he means when it is being dealt within another place. If so, may I point out that this would be impossible because this is a Money Resolution and is not subject to any alteration in another place.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Neither I nor my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee have any desire to keep the Committee an unduly long time. It is already clear that we are over-


whelmingly in favour of this Bill and are anxious for it to reach the Statute Book. But we should be neglecting our duty if we did not do everything in our power to make it as good a Bill as possible.
The Minister has assured us that in spite of the wording of the Clause, which obviously within its plain meaning can mean no other than the gloss which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and others have put upon it, he has the power he needs. I am glad to see the Financial Secretary here, because he obviously knows the answer, although perhaps he is too coy to get up and give it to us.
I want to put one question to the Minister. Can he assure us that in spite of the wording of this Clause the Treasury do not consider, and have not the right if they are so minded to prevent, any scheme or schemes which his Ministry approves and thinks desirable from being put into operation? If he can assure us that the Treasury only look at the contribution and do not examine the scheme, then it might well be that my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee might be willing to withdraw this Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and let the Committee get on to the next one.

Mr. Paget: The position is this: the Minister has told the Committee that the procedure would be one which it is quite plain the words of the Clause do not provide. Another form of words has been suggested. Two very experienced ex-Ministers have put one conclusion on the effect of those words; the Minister is advised as to something else. Surely that is something which requires further consideration?
If I could have the attention of the Minister and of the Patronage Secretary for one moment, I would tell them that this is not a Bill which we wish to obstruct but, if we are to have the Report stage immediately after this stage, it means that the Government can consider no Amendments which we put forward. Here is a serious matter.
11.30 p.m.
Could we not agree to have the Report stage tomorrow so that there will be time to consider what has been put forward? Otherwise it is reducing this Committee

stage to a complete farce, and, believe me, it is not assisting the Government to get business through because it is forcing us to go on and on, if only to provide the Minister with the time which he would otherwise not have in which to think about our suggestion. If the Minister will agree to let us have the Report stage tomorrow or the day after, we will make our suggestions and we will let him get on. There is no point in making a suggestion because one cannot have it considered unless one spends enough time to allow the Government to think. It is really making the Committee stage a farce when there is a whole list of Amendments, not one of which the Government can even consider because there is not time. We are not considering the merits, but a matter of procedure, and the Government are not going to expedite business this way.

Sir T. Dugdale: I am afraid we have not been very much in order while the hon. and learned Gentleman has been speaking, but I think the Committee is interested on that particular point. Do let us see how we get on. The reason we want this Bill very urgently, and I think it is apparent to right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite as well, is that we cannot introduce the schemes upon which we can have a further debate until this Bill is on the Statute Book. Parliamentary time at this period of the year is very tight, but if hon. Members opposite really believe that some Amendments are necessary—not necessarily this particular Amendment, however—we will see in the course of time how we get on, whether that is the case, and whether it would be better to defer the remaining stages to a very early date. I do hope the Committee will recollect that this Bill is, by and large, a Bill which is wanted on all sides of the Committee.

Mr. G. Brown: We are not putting any difficulties.

Sir T. Dugdale: I hope right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen will realise the importance of getting the scheme before the House in order that the House can debate it and see it in detail.
May I answer the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall)? When the scheme or schemes are actually introduced in the House, it is true that, under


the custom of introducing Orders, the signature will be the signature of one of the Lords of the Treasury. But that is common form. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as far as details of the scheme are concerned, they are the responsibility of my Department and of myself as Minister of Agriculture. The Treasury only have the overriding, broad financial survey of any particular scheme.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: If that is the position as stated by the Minister, what is the position of the Government in including or amending the existing words in this Clause to give legislative effect to what he says is already the practice?

Sir T. Dugdale: If I may speak again, we believe, and I am advised, that the suggested legislation would make the position worse. On balance, the Clause, as at present drafted, gives us the result we wish to achieve.

Mr. G. Brown: May I follow what the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has said and put this seriously to the Minister? We have a number of quite important and fundamental Amendments on the Order Paper which, in the interests of agriculture and the industry generally, ought to be discussed. We obviously must, in the interest of Parliamentary government, seek to discuss them until we get to a point where a decision can be made. As my hon. and learned Friend has said, if we can have an assurance now that we can have the Report stage on another day, thus allowing the Minister and us time to consider our action, and that the Minister will undertake to consider this Amendment between now and then, we can not only get on, but adapt our attitude to the Amendments which come afterwards.
I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite who are as concerned in this as we are. There are agricultural constituencies represented on the benches opposite to which this is as important and as big a matter as it is to us. If we have an assurance that the Report stage will come on another day, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman undertakes to consider this point between now and then, it will make for a better discussion and a better Bill.

Mr. Bevan: May I add my appeal? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is making a rod for his own back. What he is saying is, "Let us see how we get on and then we can see if it is necessary to have another day for the Report stage." That means we have to keep him as long as possible in order to convince him another day is necessary. That is not good Parliamentary tactics. It seems to me he is digging a pit for himself. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is the Chief Whip."] He ought not to listen too much to the Chief Whip. They are very dangerous people.
If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says now, "I will have a look at this and see whether any changes can be made" and adds, "Obviously the logical consequence of making that promise is that the Report stage will take place on another day," then we can get on. Otherwise, any promise made with no promise that the Report stage will take place on another day is a valueless promise. I think we ought to be able to extract the promise that the Report stage will be taken on another day.

Sir T. Dugdale: It is clear that the wish of the Committee is that we should not conclude our deliberations on this Bill tonight. But I must impress upon the Committee that there is urgency. I perfectly realise that there are points we wish to discuss, and I will certainly look at the point raised during the discussion on this Amendment. I should like the Committee to know that the further stages of the Bill will have to be taken after 10 p.m. on some night. If that is understood, I agree.

Mr. T. Williams: I should like to express to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman our appreciation of the response made to our appeal. I think I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that after that response we shall now help him to make rapid progress.

Mr. Hale: Since this is my Amendment, I think I had better deal with it. In view of the very courteous undertaking given by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, to leave out "may," and insert "shall."
I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we also discussed the following remaining three: in page 1, line 13, to leave out first "or"; in page 1, line 13, to leave out second "or" and insert "and"; and in page 1, to leave out lines 14 and 15.
We seek in these Amendments to ensure that there shall be separate schemes for England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland.
On Second Reading the Minister said it was the intention of the Government that for the first year there would be a joint scheme for England and Wales and for Scotland. He did not include Northern Ireland and did not say what would happen after the first year. I suggest the Government might consider even yet whether it would be desirable to have this Bill provide that there shall be established separate schemes in the three countries mentioned in the Bill.
Before the Election, the party opposite promised the electors in Scotland that if they were successful at the polls they would give Scotsmen a greater measure of control over Scottish affairs. I have heard some Conservatives boast that they have given effect to that promise. They have appointed two additional Ministers in Scotland, but that is not giving effect to their promise unless they give additional work to those Ministers in Scotland.
I wish to help the Government to fulfil at least one of their Election promises, and I am asking therefore that the Secretary of State for Scotland shall be allowed to make his own scheme for Scotland. The Joint Under-Secretary of State will, I am sure, agree that the conditions and circumstances in Scotland are in many respects very different from those in England and Wales. I know he can tell me that previous schemes have had a general application to the whole of Great Britain, but I think he would be the first to agree that in this Bill providing for the making of schemes which may be made for many years to come powers should be given to Ministers to take into account all sorts of conditions and circumstances in the framing of the scheme.
I should have thought that the Ministers might very well decide to pay a more generous fertiliser subsidy on marginal than on first-class arable land,

and a more generous subsidy in certain areas producing certain crops, and that sort of thing, and that the Joint Under-Secretary would wish to have complete freedom to make a separate scheme for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman may answer and say that there is permission to have separate schemes, but I honestly think it would be better were we to provide in the Bill that there must be separate schemes.
One has to take into account the position of Northern Ireland. The Bill provides that the Minister of Agriculture may make a joint scheme for England and Wales and Northern Ireland or a separate scheme. We rather gathered from what he said during the Second Reading debate that it is his intention, for the first year at least, to have a separate scheme for Northern Ireland. Manifestly it is right and proper that the Minister should have adequate consultation with the authorities in Northern Ireland before he makes a scheme for that area.
It seems to me a regrettable thing that the Minister of Agriculture in this country should make that scheme, and it is the answer, incidentally, to our Scottish Nationalists who sometimes ask that we should have a Parliament in Scotland with comparable powers to that in Northern Ireland. If we did it would automatically mean that the Minister of Agriculture would make the scheme for Scotland. But we do not want that. We want the Secretary of State for Scotland to make the scheme for Scotland. We think it right and proper that there should be separate schemes for the three countries.
Let the Joint Under-Secretary say that he will amend the Bill. It cannot cause the inconvenience that some people have suggested. During the Second Reading debate last Wednesday the Minister said:
It is hoped, in regard to England and Wales and Scotland, it will be possible, in order to avoid complications, to make joint schemes for these countries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 248–9.]
When the the Conservative Party made their promise to the Scottish electors that they would give them more control over Scottish affairs, they did not say it would not be possible in some cases, and that they would only do it when it did not raise complications and difficulties and


cause embarrassment to certain people in the country. They said that Scots will have more control over Scottish affairs. Let them fulfil that promise. They must have the schemes in rough draft now, and it may be that the hon. Gentleman, who is to reply, will say that they have taken the general scheme so far that it is too late to have a separate scheme. I can scarcely believe that.
11.45 p.m.
I feel that the principles and the details of a scheme that is going to be generally applicable to Great Britain as a whole could so easily be embodied in two schemes—one for England and Wales and the other for Scotland. We want to ensure, not only for this year, but for all the years that may elapse during the operation of this measure when it is on the Statute Book, that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be completely free to take account of the different circumstances that obtain in the country north of the Border. The hon. Gentleman, speaking from this side of the House in the last Parliament, called attention on many occasions to the agricultural conditions in the north of Scotland, compared with the south and with agriculture throughout England and Wales. I hope that by this time the hon. Gentleman would like to get up and say that he accepts the Amendment.

Mr. Cahir Healy: I hope that at this late hour the Committee will bear with me for a moment while I give some reasons why I think the Bill should apply to Northern Ireland. I do not like to see Ireland, even Northern Ireland, tied to a country where conditions are as different as they are between the six counties and England. I have another more important reason, and one which is certainly none the less urgent. One day we hope there will be a united Ireland, and it will be less disturbing to the national economy of the country when that day comes if we are to have an agricultural scheme for Ireland rather than one tied to the economy of this country.
I represent an area that consists mainly of small farms—the average size would be about 20 acres. It is comparatively poor land, and thus I hope the Committee will see that we have greater need

for an increased amount of fertiliser than have farms in England of a like size. We pay into the same financial pool, but we cannot receive equal benefits. I am in a bit of a difficulty here, because the financial relations between Northern Ireland and this country are so tangled that one does not know whether we are a source of profit to this country or the reverse, and I do not think we ought to pay for the sin of partition. The need for fertiliser is urgent at the moment.
Spring is here, but there is not much sign of it tonight, and this Bill has been too long delayed. The farmers of Fermanagh feel their special needs would not be met if they had a general scheme rather than a particular one. They are further from the market than the farmers of England and Wales and have greater difficulty in disposing of their crops.
The Minister, both here and in Northern Ireland, has impressed upon farmers the necessity of cultivating more land and giving inducements for tillage, but I would suggest that he make an effort to communicate with his colleague in Northern Ireland and tell him he may expect more fertiliser and probably more labour, because at the moment there is a tendency to take men from agricultural land to industrial schemes here. If that continues it will not be possible to raise that maximum amount of food in Northern Ireland which would otherwise be obtained.
The Minister here is in no positon to offer a fair distribution of fertiliser between the six counties and England, or between the six counties and Scotland. In fact the Ministry do not know—and neither do their officials—they are entirely dependent on outside advice. Any scheme for Northern Ireland should be made in Ireland—even in Northern Ireland.
We should have a scheme for Northern Ireland separate from the other schemes made in this country, because we have separate and distinct needs. Farmers should have more freedom to work out their own problems, and these problems are both agricultural and national. In short, we want to be free to spend our own money and our own taxes in the best way we can and the way commonsense and expediency suggests. Therefore, I would urge the adoption of this Amendment.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I will not detain the Committee long. I intervene for two purposes: firstly, not to congratulate the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Healy) on his maiden speech—he made it some time ago when most of us were not in this House—but to congratulate him on his maiden speech this trip, and secondly, to impress upon the Government that those who do not share the broad political views of the hon. Member agree with him in the necessity for a separate scheme for Northern Ireland.
Without going into whether we should have a separate Parliament in Ulster, I would ask the Minister to consider the suggested scheme on technical grounds. Here is a small country of just over three million acres, with 90,000 holdings and a climate in which crops of hay, potatoes and oats but hardly any corn are grown. Surely the scheme for Northern Ireland should be different and the Government should accept the Amendment.

Mr. William Ross: I rise to strengthen the hand of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. We recollect how often he stood on this side to plead for the fair play I am now asking for. The force of our argument on the last Amendment has already given him a chance to save his face in Scotland. Any scheme, even if it is a joint scheme, is finally decided in Whitehall.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Arthur Colegate): The hon. Member must not go back on a previous Amendment.

Mr. Ross: Now we are giving him a chance once again to assert the real needs of Scotland. We heard so much in the last Parliament and the one before about how Scotland was swamped in the general schemes for England and Wales and so given merely secondary or trivial consideration. I know he may plead that here we may have a separate scheme for Scotland, but we do not want just the possibility; we want the certainty of a special scheme for Scotland, and I am sure he wants that, too.
The hon. Gentleman is now the gentleman in Whitehall—and he is fighting against the same gentlemen in Whitehall about whom he had so much to say in the past. He is intimately concerned, personally, in agriculture. I can assure him that the farmers in my area will be

watching to see what kind of fight he puts up to ensure that Scotland gets special consideration. No one knows better than he that conditions in Scotland are very much different from those in England. I can remember him, on one occasion from these benches, opposing the Summer Time Act, pleading special consideration for Scotland. We wait anxiously to see how far his convictions will carry him along the road of action. He is now the man at the wheel for Scottish agriculture. I hope he will accept the Amendment.

The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Snadden.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): I will give way if hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I want to detain the Committee for only a moment to ask the Government Front Bench whether they would consider, on Report stage, looking at the special position of Northern Ireland. I did not intend to intervene. I had hoped that one of the hon. Members representing Northern Ireland would have a word to say on behalf of that area.

Mr. J. R. E. Harden: I rose, but I was stopped by my own Front Bench.

Mr. Bing: The hon. Gentleman must take a lesson from me and learn not to be put off by his own Front Bench.

Mr. Harden: I am stopped now by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Bing: I will make the point shortly. I congratulate the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Healy) on being, at the same age as the Prime Minister, prepared to sit all night in order to raise non-party points concerning Northern Ireland. Hon. Members know about the complicated financial position on which the fertiliser system is based in Northern Ireland. I have had a number of Questions down about it and could address the Committee at considerable length. I suggest that we should discuss it at a time which is more convenient and when we can give more time to it than we can now, when we must press on with the business.
Members of the Government Front Bench should remember that they owe their majority in the House to the presence of Northern Ireland Members. It is a little hard, therefore, that they should never put down Northern Ireland business at a time when it can be discussed with convenience to Northern Ireland Members. I hope I am speaking on behalf of everyone and not being provocative, as I sometimes might be thought to be on Northern Ireland affairs, when I say I hope we have another chance of considering this on the Report stage.

Mr. J. R. E. Harden: What we are discussing is whether or not we should have a separate scheme for Northern Ireland and Scotland—separate from England and Wales. I agree with what has been said; it is easier administratively to have a separate scheme for Northern Ireland. The last scheme which was run from over here caused great administrative difficulties. Farmers met many troubles. What is important about this scheme is that money should be given to the farmers quickly, because now is the time when the farmers should be buying the fertilisers which, I hope, they will sow in about a months' time.
12 midnight
For that reason I say that, if it is going to be quicker and easier to get the money paid to the farmers if this first scheme is a joint scheme for the whole of the United Kingdom, I agree that it would be right that it should be a joint scheme; but that, if that is not to be so, I would ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to consider seriously whether for administrative purposes it would not be possibly better to have a separate scheme, at least for the future.

Mr. Snadden: I think I can put the minds of Northern Ireland Members at rest to the extent of saying that it is intended that for the first period we shall probably have a separate scheme for Northern Ireland. I understand that Northern Ireland wants it, and I think I can say that the first scheme will be a separate one.

Mr. G. Brown: May I put a question so that there may not be any misunderstanding? The hon. Gentleman said first of all that probably we should have a separate scheme. Later he said it will

be a separate scheme. Is it decided to have a separate one?

Mr. Snadden: If Northern Ireland desire it, then it is our intention to give them a separate scheme. I hope that that is clear.
However, if these Amendments were carried—and I take it we are including the proposed Amendment, Clause 6, page 4, in line 3, to leave out paragraph (c)—they would remove the discretion whereby a separate scheme may be made for each of the three countries, or a joint scheme for any two countries or for all three countries. The Government would be bound to grant a separate scheme if these Amendments were carried. Well, we do not want to be tied to this. We want instead to leave the position as flexible as we possibly can, rather than introduce an undesirable rigidity into our administrative machinery.
The Clause as it stands—and I would draw the attention of the Committee to this Clause—makes it possible to make separate schemes for each country or a joint scheme for all three countries if circumstances were to arise which would make this advisable. At the same time, unless circumstances exist in favour of the production of a separate scheme, there is everything to be said, on the grounds of economy and simplicity and convenience and administrative costs in operating the scheme, for making a joint scheme if we possibly can. Similar arrangements have worked smoothly in respect of the lime scheme and in respect of the basic slag subsidy.
In regard to the first scheme to be brought in under this Bill, it is intended that there should be a separate scheme for Northern Ireland primarily for geographical reasons, and because of the conditions there. But for the first period, at any rate, a joint scheme is proposed for England, Wales and Scotland, which will be administratively convenient and economical, and the cost of which will not fall upon the Department of Agriculture for Scotland Vote.
There is no question of subordinating Scottish interests here at all. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) drew attention to what I said when I was in Opposition. I think he can take it from me that, if I felt that Scottish interests were in any way going to suffer from a


joint scheme, I should be the very first to see, if I could, that that did not happen.

Mr. T. Fraser: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has done so and been unsuccessful.

Mr. Snadden: I can assure the hon. Member that is not the case. There has been no demand from any Scottish argricultural organisation for separation for Scotland. There has been no objection from the National Farmers' Union of Scotland on this scheme. They have in mind that the agricultural lime scheme and the basic slag scheme have worked smoothly, in the same way as is being used under this Bill. There is involved a recognition of the admirable principle of co-operation where practicable and separation where desirable. I hope that hon. Members realising that Scotland is in agreement on this scheme will withdraw their Amendment.

Mr. Thomas Steele: We on this side were glad to have the agreement of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Harden) on the suggestions coming from us. The Joint Under-Secretary has said that if Northern Ireland wants a scheme of its own then it would have it. May I refer him to what the Minister said on Second Reading. He said:
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland may if he so desires produce a different scheme for Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 248.]
It is clear that the Secretary of State for Scotland does not desire a separate scheme. The Joint Under-Secretary put forward a very unusual argument. He said that between Northern Ireland and ourselves there was water. I do not know anything about the rainfall in the Eastern counties of England, but I can take him to parts of my own constituency where the rainfall is 120 inches in the year. There is therefore sufficient water not between us but actually falling on the land. The circumstances are so different that we ought to have a separate scheme for Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman is in the unfortunate position that he had to find arguments against the Labour Government on the good proposals they were bringing forward for agriculture. It is curious that a party which has gained its strength

in the industrial areas should be the one that has put agriculture on its feet. The Joint Under-Secretary, when he sat on this side, used the argument about separate schemes for Scotland because he had no other arguments to advance. In fairness to him, and because if Northern Ireland wants a scheme it can get it, and because the Minister has indicated that if Scotland desires to have a scheme the Secretary of State may produce one, we in Scotland ought to have a scheme of our own.
The Joint Under-Secretary advanced another curious argument: because we are going to have one scheme, we are going to save money because administrative costs will be less. I cannot understand that argument. Farmers will have to make their applications through the Scottish Office. How can there be any administrative saving? So far as the documents are concerned, it only needs a little alteration when they are being printed. When it comes to actual administration, whether there is a joint scheme or two schemes the costs must be the same. I would like more information on that before I shall be satisfied with the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. T. Fraser: I wish the Joint Under-Secretary had told us how the cost of administering the scheme will be increased considerably if we had separate schemes in Scotland and England. If he can show us that there would be a tremendous saving to the taxpayer. we would have to think again. On the basis of the case he has put there would be an equal saving in costs if Northern Ireland were part of the one scheme.
He said that if Northern Ireland asks for a separate scheme, Northern Ireland would get it. Scotland has not been given much opportunity of deciding whether or not it wanted a separate scheme under this Bill. If the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend want a separate scheme, will they get it? We do not know; it is only a promise made to us just now by the Joint Under-Secretary. That is not enough. Tell us more about it. Tell us why there will be a saving in costs and administrative advantage.
The Joint Under-Secretary can tell us that previous fertiliser schemes applied to the whole of Great Britain, but we


have had many other agricultural schemes that were separate. Was not the calf rearing subsidy a separate scheme for Scotland? A joint scheme there, so far as I know, would not have produced any saving in administrative costs. No one ever told me, when I was in office, that there would be a tremendous saving to the taxpayer if we had a joint scheme.
He said there was a lot of water between Northern Ireland and the mainland. There is a lot of water between the Scottish mainland and the Scottish islands and the Orkneys; and there are many times the width of water between Orkney and Shetland than between this country and Northern Ireland. But we are not even suggesting that there should be a separate scheme for Shetland and Orkney.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that a great deal more might be given under a separate scheme, I should like him to develop that further.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member is amply demonstrating his Liberalism, but I am merely calling the attention of the Committee to the reason advanced for having a separate scheme for Northern Ireland. It was because of the water between us. My hon. Friend will agree that there is many times the width of water between the two parts of his constituency that there is between the mainland and Northern Ireland.
The Joint Under-Secretary said that there was no objection from the N.F.U. to this proposal. He did not say if the N.F.U. had been consulted, but I would say to him that even if the N.F.U. had been consulted and had not raised any objection, that is no reason why this Committee should accept the provision set out in the Bill. The N.F.U. are not the legislators; we are. In any case, N.F.U. members in Scotland have not had much opportunity of considering this matter.
I tried at the weekend to consult some of my constituents and some prominent farmers in Scotland, but I had to do it very quickly. We had the Second Reading on Wednesday of last week. We were informed on Thursday

that we were to have the Committee and remaining stages on Monday of this week. That is not much time when I think of the time wasted during the Committee stage on the Hill Farming Bill in 1946, which provided a total expenditure of not more than £5 million over many years.
When I think that we are asked to come back three or four days after the Second Reading to complete the Committee stage and all the remaining stages of this Bill, which provides for the expenditure of unlimited millions of pounds in all and, it is reasonable to assume, of a minimum of some £50 million, I submit that we have not had an adequate opportunity of consulting our constituents. Unless there is a very strong case to the contrary, I think we should provide in the Bill that there shall be separate schemes for England and Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I wish the Joint Under-Secretary or the Minister would tell us in what way there is to be this tremendous saving in costs by virtue of having one scheme for England and Wales and Scotland. Then perhaps we could get on with the business. We do not want to delay; we want to make some progress.

Mr. Snadden: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have realised, having been a Minister himself in the Scottish Office, that we would not come forward with a Bill of this nature, without having had full consultations with the National Farmers Union. We have had those consultations and there was no demand at all, as I have said, for any separate scheme for our country.
The reason why we are able to save on administration costs is that it is proposed to make contributions under this Bill in the same way as is done in the agricultural lime scheme. That has a United Kingdom organisation and does not carry any Scottish Department, which would have to be set up to deal with this scheme. It will be dealt with by the Minister of Agriculture in London and we shall therefore save. I cannot state how much, but in these days we are all very keen to save anything at all. The costs are no doubt considerable and it may be that if the minimum is cut down later, as it may well be, there will be a large number of smaller claims to be


met. Unless there are conditions that call for a separate scheme, we should have a joint scheme, and in this case it will be administered as the agricultural lime scheme is administered, and that scheme has worked smoothly for many years.

Mr. Steele: To whom in Scotland do the farmers make their application?

Mr. Snadden: The farmers' application will be a direct application of his own, which will go through the branch in Scotland, already existing, of the Agricultural Lime Department. It is a very small branch, but it is located in Scotland and always has been and is dealing with the lime subsidy now in operation. We want to retain the same machinery in order to save costs. I cannot make it any clearer than that. If we had a separate scheme we would require a separate organisation to cope with a large number of small payments, which would cost a great deal of money. As the farmers have not demanded a separate scheme, it seems sensible to start with a joint scheme which is economic. For that reason, we are proposing to have a joint scheme.

Mr. Grimond: I do not want to detain the Committee, but I would point out that it would have saved considerable time if both the Labour Party, when they were in office, and now the Conservative Party, had been willing to introduce some degree of Home Rule for Scotland. I do not want to go quite as far as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Healy), but the Liberal Party have long advocated that a measure of Government in Scotland by the Scottish people—and not merely administrative devolution—would have been desirable. If this had been the case, we would have been saved the time tonight.

Mr. T. Fraser: I am grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary for the further information. I think he has tried hard to meet us and to justify the provision in the Bill as it is. Let me say to him and to the Minister, and through them, to the Secretary of State for Scotland, that as these Amendments have been on the Order Paper since Friday morning of last week, the Department concerned might well have anticipated that we would ask the question as to what was the extent of this estimated saving in administrative

costs. I thought I heard the Joint Under-Secretary murmur, "An impossibility." But let me say to him that although I think he has been trying very hard, I do not believe it to be impossible at all.
He tells us that this cannot be administered by the machinery agreed under the Act of 1937. I have often expressed the view that a great mistake was made in 1937 when the full responsibility was given to the Minister of Agriculture. There was no provision in the Act of 1937 for separate schemes. The responsibility was put fairly and squarely upon the shoulders of the Minister. That I very much regretted.
I do not think, in the light of what the hon. Gentleman says, that we need press this matter any further. I would ask him and the Minister to bear in mind what has been said during the debate, to have another look at this, and to see if it would not be possible in later years to have a separate scheme. After all, the Joint Under-Secretary and his right hon. Friend have appreciated the possibility and the practicability of having a separate scheme, otherwise they would not have made the provision in the Bill.
The argument adduced by the hon. Gentleman of administrative convenience and costs was one which could be made against putting this permissive power in the Bill. Let him have another look at the argument adduced in the debate to see whether, after the first year's scheme, we can have separate schemes for the three countries. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. G. Brown: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, after "land," to insert:
allotment holders or smallholders.
I do not know whether the Joint Parliamentary Secretary who at one remove succeeded me as chairman of the Council for Domestic Food Production is going to answer the debate on this Amendment. It may be we can dispose of it without too long discussion, but that will depend upon the tenor and tone of the reply. As it stands at the moment, two completely different descriptions or sets of words are used in this Subsection, which states:
(3) The contributions to be provided for by a scheme…in respect of fertilisers acquired by occupiers of agricultural land, or


by associations of farmers, allotment holders or smallholders, or other similar associations…
I am afraid that the use of different phrases there may be deliberate and that whereas the occupiers of agricultural land as defined in the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, are entitled to obtain their fertilisers individually and claim individually or to obtain them collectively and claim collectively, the others, namely the allotment holders and—although I am not very clear why the word "smallholders" is used in the second description—possibly the smallholders, may get their fertiliser collectively but may not get it or claim it individually.
If I am right in believing that is the meaning of the Clause, I think it is not only an injustice to a number of people but that it is likely to have a damaging effect upon food production. I can see the claim one can make that an allotment holder or a producer of food on a small scale ought to be in his appropriate association. That is an argument which I spent some time in putting over in days gone by, but we ought not to insist that that should be so. After all, there are parts of the country where membership of an association would be difficult for a small-scale producer. If that man who cannot join or chooses not to join has to buy his fertiliser at the unsubsidised price it is a considerable injustice to him.
But there is a second argument. And here I want to say a word about the Ministry, almost without saying it about the Minister or the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. As a hangover from service at No. 55, Whitehall, one cannot help the feeling that the people there have never appreciated the potential contribution of the domestic producer. In our present circumstances we could get a very considerable part of the increase in the potato acreage that we need and a reduction in the demand upon commercial supplies of potatoes if all those running allotments did their job with vigour as they once did.
I believe it is time we made an appeal in those terms to the domestic food producer. But one cannot make an appeal in those terms if at the same time one discourages him by making it difficult for him to obtain the fertiliser which the Minister on Second Reading said was so

essential to adequate food production. Therefore, if I am right in my assumption that the use of the phrase is deliberate and has the meaning I attribute to it, I believe we ought to amend it before the Bill comes to the end of its journey.
12.30 a.m.
The other day the right hon. Gentleman answered a Question of mine, which, because of the unfortunate habit that has now grown up of never reaching agricultural Questions on a Thursday, was a written answer, and therefore I could not tackle him about it. In his answer he said this was essentially a matter of individual self-help. I believe the wording of this Clause comes from the same stable as that description of food production. Really it is more than that. It should be more than that, and it can be more than that.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary may say that this, after all, is the outcome of the Price Review, that we do not consider allotment holders and other folk in the Price Review, and that if we were to spread the money over them we would reduce what we have agreed should be recouped by the farmers. I do not believe he would be well advised to use that argument.
By this Bill we are already proposing, in effect, to give a rather larger sum of money than the strict costing arrangements in that special review by themselves justified. That was a sum of something over £9 million, and we have given £10 million, so there is some money in the kitty which we could use. Secondly, horticulturists are coming into this subsidy. They certainly were not part of the Price Review.
If it is true that by spreading the money over allotment holders and smallholders we should be eating into the farmers' just return, it is equally true in the case of the horticulturists. We should be assured tonight that the words "occupiers of agricultural land" mean the same individually as the groups of people mentioned collectively further on, and, if we are, I shall want to know why we are not using exactly the same words in both cases. I hope that if the Parliamentary Secretary is going to give me that assurance he will also tell me that he is proposing to redraft the Clause so that anybody who later on has to interpret it will do so in that sense.
I hope I shall be given the assurance that he will agree to use whichever of the words or both the words "allotment holders" and "smallholders" is necessary in line 18 in order to make it clear that the people who may buy or claim collectively may, if they choose, buy and claim individually. In view of all the wealth of material I left behind for him at the Ministry, I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to let us have this Amendment or something like it.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I think I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks, that "occupiers" does have the same meaning in both contexts. There is no concealed subtlety about this Subsection. The reason why it is drafted in the way it appears is because it is essential, as the Committee already knows from the Second Reading debate, to fix some minimum quantity on which a claim could be made. A quantity of 10 cwt. was in fact mentioned in the Second Reading debate.
Whether that will finally be the minimum quantity on which a claim can be made, I should not like to say at this stage. It may be possible to put it lower. Quite obviously it cannot go lower than perhaps 5 cwt. or some such figure. If there was no minimum there would be claims for 1 1b. or 7 1b., which would be administratively impossible.

Mr. Paget: rose—

Mr. Nugent: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to complete the point I may be able to answer the question he wishes to put.
The reason the Clause is drafted in this way is because we realise that people such as allotments holders may not require as much as the minimum amount, but we have made provision for associations of allotment holders, smallholders or farmers so that together they can reach the minimum figure and make their claim and share the subsidy.
I trust that with that explanation the Committee will be satisfied that this does express what is our general intention, not only for farmers as a whole or for horticulturists who are in a commercial way of business to get the benefit but for allotment holders and smallholders who are doing what they can to contribute to

the food of the nation. I am not going to bring in the argument about the Price Review, because I think I would be ruled out of order, and also because I do not think it is a good argument. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will now be prepared to accept the Clause.

Mr. Paget: Surely the difficulty which has led to misunderstanding could be overcome simply by saying "occupiers of agricultural land" or "by associations of occupiers of agricultural land ". Where in a Clause there is one description in one place and another description in another place it is a rule of construction applied in the courts that it is presumed that Parliament intends to mean something different when it uses a different description of two things immediately adjacent.
That point might be considered, because all ambiguity would disappear if it were made to read "occupiers or associations of occupiers". Further, it would save a certain amount of printing because a number of words would be saved. It is said that this cannot be paid on small amounts, but why cannot it be paid at the manufacturing level? Instead of putting farmers to the trouble of making out forms for application, why not let the manufacturer who has an office make the application and then put the commodity on the market at the subsidised price?

Mr. M. Philips Price: There is one matter I should like to have cleared up, because it might affect people living in my constituency. In the Forest of Dean there are smallholders—men who work in the mines or in industry—who work plots varying from a half to one acre in upland valleys. They are not persons who can be helped because of the isolation of their places, but it is important that that type of smallholding should have an opportunity of benefitting, because, as the Minister knows, it is for that type of upland we must get in the future that increase in livestock to provide the animals we want for the lowlands for fattening and making beef. I want to be quite sure therefore that that type of person will be included. It will not be possible in many cases for joint societies because of their isolation. Therefore, I want to be quite sure they are covered under the words "acquired by occupiers of agricultural land".

Mr. T. Fraser: In my part of the country we have a great concentration of market gardeners in quite a small way of business—a great number of them in the Clyde Valley of Lanarkshire. They have half an acre, possibly, three-quarters of an acre, or perhaps an acre of land with 300 feet for growing tomatoes. The rest of that land is most extensively cultivated for the growing of vegetables.
I had understood that many of these people were not in fact occupiers of agricultural land. I understand they are not recognised as such in previous statutes. The Minister in his reply said all allotment holders were occupiers of agricultural land. Is that so? Do previous statutes define agricultural land or occupiers of agricultural land in such a way as to include allotment holders and those men who rent or buy half an acre of land which they cultivate extensively for the production of vegetables?
If such a man is operating on agricultural land and gets that subsidy provided he takes the minimum quantity, I think my right hon. Friend will be happy—I certainly would be happy—to withdraw the Amendment. We put it down because these people could not very conveniently be members of an association of smallholders or allotment holders and we wish them to be provided for. If they are in fact occupiers of agricultural land, we are perfectly happy to leave the Bill as it is.

Mr. Nugent: The definition of agricultural land for that purpose of course will be in the scheme and we are in a difficulty because the Committee does not have the scheme before it at this moment. Before the scheme comes into operation the House will have had the scheme before it when, if it wishes, it will be able to make such amendment or otherwise—

Mr. Hale: rose—

Mr. Nugent: If I can just answer I will give way. Occupiers of horticultural land of a small acreage will be able to come into the scheme. The necessity of belonging to an association is not a practical necessity—"association," as the hon. Member will notice, is not written with a capital A. Therefore, any cultivator of land of any size who wanted less

than the minimum specified in the scheme can associate himself with two or three others to make up together to qualify for the subsidy. In that way I think there should be no practical difficulty for a man or woman who is cultivating any sized plot of land in any circumstances.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Hale: I had not intended to intervene and I have not taken part in the discussion, but I must say the Court of Appeal may take rather a curious view of the proposal that the size of the initial letter of a word shall control its meaning. When the hon. Gentleman says the definition will be in the scheme, I ask him to bear in mind that that definition is bound by the definition in the Act. It must be either the same as in the Act or something less. He cannot extend what the Act says by a definition under the scheme.
With great respect, to say that the definition will be in the scheme is not only insufficient but is also rather a distressing answer. The hon. Gentleman cannot put in the scheme anything wider than that which is in the Act. I agree with my right hon. Friend and, as far as I am concerned, the next Amendment would be met on the precise lines which he has suggested.

Mr. G. Brown: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), I am sorry about the form of the answer. I should like to withdraw the Amendment and to move on but, quite frankly, if I and those for whom I speak are to be satisfied, the matter cannot be left where it is. May I ask the Minister this—and I do so from no sense of dissatisfaction with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary? Is not the term "occupiers of agricultural land" a term with a specific and well-known meaning? That meaning does not include allotment holders in the sense in which I used the word just now. I remember many discussions on this and that we had to define allotment holders specially if they were to be included in schemes.
If that is so, then the advice tendered to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is not correct. I do not think we should waste time on this now, and if the Minister would say that between now and the Report stage he will make quite sure that he is right, I should be satisfied. The


Joint Parliamentary Secretary has stated that it is the intention to include allotment holders and small-holders. If the Minister can make quite sure that they are covered by these words, I shall be satisfied.

Mr. T. Fraser: The term "occupiers of agricultural land" is defined in the statute. The Attorney-General, who is present, could tell the Committee what the definition is. It is defined in the statute for different reasons; in the Agricultural Act, for instance, it is contained for an agricultural purpose, and in the De-rating Act it is defined because a person has to have a certain acreage in order to get the benefit of de-rating under the 1925 Act.
There are many people, I submit, whom the Minister wishes to include in the scheme, and who are excluded by the definition of "occupiers of agricultural land." Consultations are taking place on the Government Front Bench and information is being conveyed to the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I hope they can help us, for we want to get this quite clear before we pass on.
Although I am not a lawyer, I am absolutely certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) is right. If the Bill does not provide in its terms that the subsidy shall be paid to allotment holders, and an endeavour is made in drafting the scheme to include them, and to include people who are excluded by the definition of "occupiers of agricultural land", then I am certain the Minister will have to bring his scheme to the House and to say, "I am sorry; I wanted to include these small people, but they cannot be included unless they are members of an Association and are included under the next line "—that is, the line next to that which we are seeking to amend. Can the Minister give us any further assurance on the matter?

Mr. Nugent: I cannot give a further assurance. I can only repeat the assurance I have already given. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his interpretation of this Clause. It is quite specific. The words are
…occupiers of agricultural land, or by associations of farmers, allotment holders or smallholders.…
It really could not go wider than that—

Mr. G. Brown: Oh, yes, it could.

Mr. Nugent: I am not giving way—to cover every type of cultivation of land that we wish to cover in this respect, and the definition of agricultural land which may appear in the 1947 Act or other Acts does not refer to this Bill. This Bill can make its own definition, and is quite independent of any other definition. However, I can certainly give the assurance that the subsidy which is provided here will be available to the classes of cultivators of land the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. G. Brown: I am sorry to press this, but I must. Incidentally, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not persist in doing what he has now already done to me and to an hon. Friend of mine—saying in an angry tone that he will not give way. We are only trying to help a group of people who really must be looked after. The hon. Gentleman says it could not be wider than it is, but he has not answered my point. Why was the phrase "occupiers of agricultural land", if it means farmers, allotment holders and smallholders, not used twice, as it easily could have been?
I know that some advice has been passed along the traditional channels, but there are rather greater legal authorities in the Ministry than could possibly be here at one o'clock in the morning, and it would do no harm to anybody, to the Bill, or to the hon. Gentleman's prestige, were he to say he will look at this again before the Report stage and consult the best legal authority available to him, to make sure that what he has said in all good faith is in fact the case. That was all I asked for earlier.
There is no need for us to get touchy with each other. We do not want to find later on that the courts say, "The Act must have been meant to mean what it says, and, no matter what was said to have been intended, the Act in fact says this." If the hon. Gentleman will give an assurance that he will look at this again, to be able to give us further assurance at the Report stage, we can pass on.

Mr. Nugent: We certainly give the assurance that we are satisfied that it is right as it is here. We will give it a further check, and if it is necessary, then, to give a further assurance at the next stage, we shall certainly do so.

Mr. G. Brown: In the light of that, for which I thank the hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. G. Brown: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 3 to 9.
I move this Amendment purely to provide an opportunity to clear up what is meant not only by the Clause but by the form of the wording that is chosen, and to learn why the Minister chose to put it in this way.
It has been said already tonight, and it has been said to me in many communications from friends in the industry, that we are choosing, in the way the emphasis is put, the most costly and most troublesome way of paying this subsidy. Many people take the view that if the scheme is operated in such a way that the individual farmer has to claim, and to receive payment, we are calling on them to fill in a number of needless forms, and we are bound to have an administrative and a checking machinery. Later on there is provision for inspectors to see where the fertiliser is, and where it has been used —what used to be called in the last Parliament, where the language of the Opposition was not so delicate as ours, machinery for snooping.
This Clause says:
Provided that, if the appropriate Minister is satisfied that there are circumstances which render it substantially more expedient that the relief should be given, in the country or countries in which a scheme under this Act is to operate, by means of contributions in respect of fertilisers manufactured, imported or distributed by persons who manufacture, import or distribute them, he may make provision thereby for such contributions.
What are the circumstances which would be regarded as rendering it more expedient to do it that way round? Why not say that it would be done that way round unless there were circumstances which made it expedient to choose the longer and more cumbersome and costly method? I agree that the Minister should retain discretion to do it either way, but I think he is putting the emphasis the wrong way.
I have no strong views on this myself, but I have received strong representations from farmers and others that the way he is going to use exceptionally would in general be the better way. Maybe he

will say that he intends to use this method as often as the other. If so, we shall be glad to be told.
I have seen a document issued by the N.F.U., the National Farmers' Union News Sheet, which purports to tell its members how this scheme will operate. Since that has gone out I think the Minister should tell us whether what the union is telling its members in advance of what the Minister has told the House is right. It says:
A supplier of fertilisers to the farmer should apply to the Ministry of Agriculture for claim forms, on which he should record the amount of fertiliser that he has supplied to the farmer. He should then forward the claim form to the farmer, who must certify that he has received it. The farmer will then forward that to the county committee. The farmer may if he chooses ask that the contribution be paid direct to his supplier.
This only came out on 26th February. I think they have got the information out on the basis of what the Minister said on Second Reading, that he was going to follow the lime scheme. If that was done, it would be a cumbersome way of doing it. I ask him whether it would not be better to do it the other way round in the first place. I would be glad to have it cleared up for the benefit of farmers whether the advice that has been sent out by the organisation is in accord with the Minister's intention.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: There is one point of considerable importance I want to put to supplement what has been said by my right hon. Friend. In the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum the administrative costs are estimated at £30,000 a year. We should not like to spend that considerable sum in administrative costs if we could spend it on additional fertiliser that would give a far better return. I suggest the Minister consider doing this by a less costly method.

Sir T. Dugdale: So far as this Amendment is concerned, it is very much a question of balance. The whole idea of this subsection is flexibility, so that we can do it either way. It is true that in the first scheme it is our intention to base the administration on the agricultural lime scheme. I do not think it would be any more costly than the other method in this case, because it will be operated by the staff who are at present running the lime scheme subsidy.
I do not wish to introduce a political element, but it must be remembered that done in this way it is under the direct control of the Minister of Agriculture, whereas if it were done under the other system it would come either under the control of the Board of Trade or the Minister of Materials. I believe that if the original scheme had been under the control of the Minister of Agriculture, it would never have been taken off.
Apart from that, there are disadvantages in the subsidy being worked by the merchants. There is no doubt that when it is put on at the source by the merchants the individual farmer has no idea how much he has been helped. It was only when the original fertiliser scheme was taken off in its entirety on 1st July, 1951, that the individual farmer appreciated how much had been done for him by the Government.
Although it is our intention that the first scheme should be run on the same lines as the agricultural lime scheme—payment direct to farmer, except when he specially asks for payment to the merchant—it may be found preferable, after some experience, to run the scheme by injecting the subsidy at the factory end. If that does prove the better way, we shall not hesitate to adopt it.
As the Bill stands now, it gives power to do it either way, so that the Minister can make up his mind in any particular case which method he is going to adopt. Probably it will be found more convenient, as far as the first scheme is concerned, for the scheme for Northern Ireland to be dealt with in the way provided under this particular sub-paragraph.

Mr. Mikardo: One does not want to make heavy weather of this, because it is obviously sensible that the Minister should have the power to choose between alternative ways. However, I was a little perturbed when he said that the great advantage of doing it by way of direct payments to the farmers was that as a result they could see how much they were being helped. I can understand that has some value, but I should have thought its value was not so great as to justify the enormous increase in the administrative costs of the scheme.
After all, the best way to administer any scheme of subsidy is at the point where there are fewest payees of largest amounts, rather than the largest number of payees in small amounts. I am sure the Minister could not persuade his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food to pay the consumers' food subsidies direct on claims from every housewife merely in order that she should understand how much she was being helped by Her Majesty's Government.
Just imagine the situation if my wife had to send in every week to the Ministry of Food a claim for subsidies for three eggs, six ounces of bacon, eight ounces of margarine and 4½ ounces of tea, and so on. It would certainly make her realise that she was being helped by Her Majesty's Government to the extent of 8s. a week, but it would be a costly way of providing her with this education.
I am not well acquainted with the agricultural community, but I should have thought that farmers are as educable as housewives—

Sir T. Dugdale: They are more vocal.

Mr. Mikardo: I agree that they are more vocal. Therefore, I think we ought not to assume that we need spend a lot of money on undue administrative costs in order to make them understand a simple point. But this is a consideration which I am sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will have in mind.

Sir T. Dugdale: May I answer that straight away? There is the other side, which I am certain the hon. Gentleman will appreciate. If it is done the other way there is the danger of the vicious cost-plus system. That can be more extravagant and certainly does not encourage the manufacturer to try to bring down his costs, which is so essential at the present time.

Mr. Paget: I should have thought that there was a perfectly good reason for doing it in the case of the lime scheme, since lime is used for many other purposes than as a fertiliser. If we only want to subsidise it when it is put on the land, then we have to subsidise it in a manner in which the subsidy only becomes applicable when it goes to an


agricultural user. But here we are dealing with fertilisers which, as far as I know, have no use other than to fertilise land. There is no need to distinguish between a subsidy for one user and a subsidy for another user when there is only one.
As to the question of cost-plus, I fail to see how that arises. The costings have to be worked out before deciding what is the fair subsidy on each particular brand. Surely the convenient way to deal with a fertiliser which has no alternative usage is to say, "Well, these are the brands, this is the subsidy per bag," and to pay it at the point of largest concentration, which is at the manufacturers. I speak as a farmer to a farmer, and I think we shall both be grateful for any form which we have not got to fill up.

Mr. G. Brown: I am seeking to help the Minister. I was relieved to hear that between the introduction of the first scheme, which is already in arrears, and the introduction of the next scheme he is going to think about this. My only fear is that he will have to be strong when thinking about it because this is not as flexible as he would have the Committee understand. But as he is going to think about this point it is open, so that we need not make heavy weather of it.
Before I formally ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, I must say that I was glad to find that the longish argument we had on the first Amendment has had its effect. The Minister was sure earlier on that he could not be trodden on by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now, he says one reason regarding this matter is there is the risk that he may be trodden on by those dreadful colleagues, the Minister of Materials or the President of the Board of Trade. I am glad he realises that when speaking two hours after the discussion on the first Amendment he runs a risk, and I hope he is grateful to the Opposition for keeping him out of as much trouble as they can. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. G. Brown: I am sorry to keep getting up at this time of the morning, although it is difficult to know what else to do. It is a good reason why the Patronage Secretary should consider if we ought to go on with these important Amendments at this hour. The point I want to put, and which perhaps can be shortly answered, arises out of something said by one of my hon. Friends. I raised the question, during the Second Reading debate, about how closely the Minister or somebody is watching the prices at which these fertilisers are being sold to the farmers.
I have with me, but I will not at this time of the morning trouble the Committee with them, a list of financial returns issued by a number of companies who are substantially in this field of fertiliser manufacture. One has the impression from these figures that there is a good deal of slack here which they could take up and that, in fact, some part of the price increases in recent time have been unnecessary and that the permission recently given to raise the margin of these people was, to say the least, a little without need. Since we do not want this money ostensibly going into the farmers' pockets or the pockets of manufacturers, and having the sort of attack we experienced the other night, we must be careful in checking the price of these fertilisers.
That raises the point whether the people to operate the price control, and therefore do the checking of the level of prices, ought not to be operating on the same point as the subsidy is paid. We are going to have a subsidy at one end of the scheme, involving the Minister of Agriculture, but he is not the chap charged with the job of operating the prices of the price control machinery. That is another Minister, so that we have two Ministers involved in operating part of the same scheme. I have a feeling they are not correlated as much as they can be.

Mr. Grimond: During the Second Reading debate I expressed some fear that the very small users of fertilizers, like crofters, would be denied the subsidy because of the minimum. Part of the answer was given by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who said:
It should be remembered that under the Bill the small people are looked after by a special provision—that is to say, they can,


through the various associations which buy fertilisers in bulk, take advantage of the provisions in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 300–301.]
That was certainly useful, but during the discussion on this Clause I thought we had something further than that. If I understood him rightly, the Minister who replied to the point said that two or three users could get together entirely informally and could agree to buy an amount of fertiliser which could be more than the minimum and draw a subsidy. I should like to have that confirmed, because I think it would be of great assistance in my constituency.
1.15 a,m,
If that is the case, I ask the Minister to do his best when he draws up the scheme to ensure that the forms to be filled up to secure the subsidy are made as simple as possible. If two or three people are to be allowed to get together and draw a subsidy in the name of one man that man will only be willing to act if he has not a lot of papers to fill up in the names of his neighbours. I understand the minimum quantity of fertiliser is to be reduced from 10 cwt. to 5 cwt. I ask the Minister to make the minimum as small as possible in the case of the crofters.
As to the cost, is it the case that there is still an Import Duty on some fertilisers? If possible I should like to have that question answered, because it would be absurd to pay a subsidy to an importer on one hand and then to place a duty on the very fertilisers he is importing.

Mr. T. Fraser: I think this is the point at which we ought to ask the Minister to take what steps he can himself and with his colleagues to control the price of fertilisers and to have a look at the very substantial profits made by the manufacturers or importers. We must endeavour to ensure that the monies which under this Clause, are to be paid out of taxation are paid to farmers who are paying a justifiable and reasonable price and no more for the fertilisers. We know that some of the industrial organisations who manufacture and import and handle these fertilisers make tremendous profits. I know, of course, that they have many activities other than the manufacture or importation of fertilisers, but we want to make sure they

do not make unjustifiably high profits, and we want an assurance that there will not be any "cost-plus."
I must tell the Minister it will be equally difficult to ensure that manufacturers and importers are not getting away with it, whether the subsidy is paid directly to the farmer or whether it is paid to the manufacturer and importer, or at some point along the chain of distribution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has said that the Minister who looks at the profit margin of these firms when he determines the controlled price at which fertiliser is sold to the farmer is not the Minister of Agriculture but the Minister who is at present responsible for the supply of raw materials. And it is because the controlled price has risen to such a very high figure since July of last year that we have found it necessary to introduce this subsidy.
In the circumstances, we ask the Minister to take all possible steps to ensure that the price of fertiliser is not allowed to go too high and so make a quite unjustifiable drain on the taxpayer of this country.

Sir T. Dugdale: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and his hon. Friends have raised a very important point. It was raised in debate on Second Reading, since when I have had the opportunity to see exactly what is the position. The prices of fertilisers are fixed by Order and these Orders are made by the Ministry of Materials with whom we are in very close touch. The prices are only agreed after the closest examination by accountants employed by the Ministry of Materials.
An assurance can be given, and I give it deliberately, that the closest possible attention is being paid and will be paid generally to the prices of fertilisers and to the extra charge for compounding where that becomes necessary. In amplifying that statement, I would also inform the right hon. Gentleman that when an increase is made in the price of fertilisers under the authority of the Ministry of Materials a consequential Order is made by the Treasury which prevents manufacturers of fertilisers taking advantage of any increase in price in


respect of stocks held by them when the price is raised. I hope with that assurance the right hon. Gentleman will realise that we are watching this matter very carefully.
Regarding the point raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). The answer is yes; two or three can get together if they so desire and buy a sack of fertiliser, but I must ask the hon. Gentleman to wait until the first scheme is published before I give him definitely the minimum weight which an individual or a group of people can buy. The point is very much in mind and is being discussed between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Scottish Office, and we hope to meet the particular case of the crofters in his part of the country.

Mr. G. Brown: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the care and courtesy with which he has approached this point and for the very full statement which he has deliberately made for the record.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Now that we have reached the end of this very important Clause and before we go on to Clause 2, I wonder whether this would be a good opportunity to inquire, either from the Minister or from the Patronage Secretary, the intentions of the Government. I think the Committee is fully seized of the fact that up to now there has been no obstruction from this side. I have listened to most of the debate, and I think it can be said without fear of contradiction that all the speeches that have been made and all the Amendments that have been moved have been substantial ones.
On looking at the Order Paper I see that there are at least six more Amendments which I understand are likely to be called, three of them substantial ones. If the Committee is to do justice to them they will take some considerable time. That being so, and as up to now with perhaps one or two exceptions when things did not go quite so sweetly we have had a most interesting and amicable debate, I venture to suggest that this might be an appropriate time at which to stop our deliberations so that we may

continue them at another time when we shall not only be fresher, but when more people will be present to help us in our deliberations on this important Bill.

The Chairman: In that case the right hon. Gentleman must move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Sir T. Dugdale: The House will recollect that we deliberately said that we would not ask it to take the remaining stages of this Bill if we could obtain the Committee stage, and it was the general view of the House to complete that stage. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that we did not, as we could have done, take the Committee stage of this Bill at 2 a.m. on Tuesday, and we are now trying to make progress. This is a very important Bill, the timetable is extremely tight and I hope the House will agree to continue. There are not many points of substance left, and I hope I may be of assistance in those which may be raised.

Mr. E. Fletcher: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, for the guidance of the Committee, how far the Government are intending to continue. Is it intended to proceed today, not only with the Bill now under consideration, but also with the Export Credit Guarantees Bill which is down for consideration?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Buchan-Hepburn): It is the intention to proceed with the Export Credit Guarantees Bill and the rest of the business down for consideration today.

The Chairman: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw his Motion?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: In those circumstances, I have no other option but to withdraw. I must say that the right hon. Gentleman has not been very accommodating. I remember that when we were sitting on that side of the House we were much more helpful to the Opposition. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(PERIOD IN RESPECT OF WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS MAY BE MADE.)

Mr. Paget: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, to leave out Subsection (2).
The object of this Amendment is very much the same as one moved earlier by one of my hon. Friends, that is to draw attention to the principle that payment to the manufacturer will be much more convenient than payment to the farmer direct. What it seems to me has happened is that the only fertiliser subsidy in existence was the lime fertiliser subsidy, and that subsidy worked in a peculiarly complicated way, but it was not one generally for an article but for a particular user of an article.
I think most of us who have had experience of that subsidy know how much trouble it causes to farmers. Now that that machinery has been re-introduced, I see that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland shakes his head, but I would certainly say that having had a good deal of lime under that subsidy scheme I found the procedure to get it was a great nuisance. It is necessary when it is not to be confined to a user, but when it is to be confined to a user it is unnecessary. I hope the Minister will give that point additional thought in considering further schemes under this Act.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Nugent: The effect of the Subsection, as I have no doubt the hon. Member knows, is to make provision for where schemes are injected into the subsidy. If it was left out it would prevent the Minister introducing such schemes if he thought at any time it was desirable to do so.
I can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend is well seized of the point he wishes to make and that where it is appropriate he will do so, but I think it would be right to say that the lime scheme has been operated now for many years and quite a number of hon. Members have used it and have not really found it was onerous. It is true that we followed the form of existing machinery—it could be used conveniently —but in the first place, if we find the scheme is not working satisfactory, the Clause allows my right hon. Friend to introduce a scheme which injects the subsidy at that manufacturers' level.

Mr. Hale: I had hoped that we would have had a prolonged and interesting debate on retrospective legislation on this point and had the services of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whose expert knowledge on this subject we had so frequently in the last Parliament. I must say that I and my friends do not intend to carry this Amendment to a Division. Therefore, with the greatest reluctance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, to leave out "fifty-six" and insert "fifty-two."

Mr. Nugent: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would consider also taking the Amendment in page 2, line 39, as I think the two are related.

Mr. Fraser: No, Sir. With great respect, they are quite separate. I hope the Joint Parliamentary Secretary accepts that. I want to recall what the Minister said on Second Reading. He said:
Here again I wish to make it perfectly clear to the House that while the Bill contemplates that these fertiliser subsidies may be continued up to 30th June, 1956, or even longer through the procedure of affirmative Resolution, nevertheless the Government have given no undertaking that the fertiliser subsidies will in fact continue for so long a period. The power thus taken is permissive and what use is made of it will depend on the needs of agriculture and the prevailing financial circumstances during the next few years. I hope I have made that position clear to the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February; Vol. 496, c. 245.]
These are the words of the Minister. This condition he has mentioned will have to be taken into account in the next few years, not only by the Minister but by the House of Commons. One has only to think of the discussions which have taken place in the last two or three years as to whether it is desirable that there should be a subsidy or a special subsidy injected into agriculture production. One thinks of the calf rearing subsidy introduced a few years ago.
There are no party politics in this. When we discussed the Orders, and when we discussed the subject in the Budget debate, and when we discussed the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, hon. Members on both sides expressed the view most forcibly


that it would be better to give an increased price for beef than to pay the calf-rearing subsidy and so inject money into agriculture at some point in the course of production.
Equally, there are some Members in all parties who take the view that instead of having this subsidy it might be better to give an increased price to farmers for their scheduled price commodities. There is that argument. What I am asking is that this Bill should not empower the Minister to bring forward a scheme to run for three, four or more years. It would be wrong for the Minister to bring forward such a scheme. If he did, we could debate it and the House, if it thought fit, could reject it, but the House might think the scheme admirable in every respect except that it was to run for three, four or more years. The Minister has said we must keep this subject under review, and that we should do so from year to year, but it should be done not from 1956 but starting in 1952.
Both the Minister and the N.F.U. negotiators should be quite free to press changes at the succeeding Price Review —for instance, that there should be an increase in price for a product rather than that this subsidy should be continued. Some N.F.U. negotiators, seeing that this amount of money was to be granted, might suggest that it should be given to the farmer who produced the guaranteed price commodity, instead of having it more thinly spread over all farmers and occupiers of agricultural land, including horticulturalists. They might feel it should be paid to the farmer producing the commodities contained in the Schedule to the 1947 Act, which would include some horticulturalists—people producing potatoes—but which, by and large, would mean only the farmer.
These are things which ought to be left for further discussion year by year between the Ministers and the farmers' representatives. They ought to be open to discussion in the House. I take the view that these directional subsidies are an excellent thing; I favour them and I favour this method. I prefer to spend £10 million in this way to giving £10 million to the farmers in increased prices. But there are many who take the contrary view, and they have a right to express

their view, and the Minister should take it into account as it is expressed from time to time. Circumstances can change so much in the course of a year that it is desirable to have a full review each year.
I am not speaking on the second Amendment, which the Joint-Parliamentary Secretary wanted us to discuss with this Amendment, but I submit that we should have an opportunity of having this review at any time after 1952. We should give the Minister power in this Bill, were it not amended, to bring forward a scheme which would run three or four or more years. We hope the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment. It is not denying him any powers, or denying farmers any subsidies at all. It means only that the scheme can be made in the first place only for the period about which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman made an agreement with the farmers quite recently and an announcement to the House of Commons in the early days of December.

Mr. Mikardo: I am sure, after the speech to which we have just listened, that the Minister will appreciate the advantages which would flow from his accepting this Amendment. I merely wish to observe, very briefly, how much greater those advantages would have been if my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) had not, misguidedly, as I thought, declined to move his Amendment, in page 2, line 33, to leave out "fifty-one" and to insert "fifty-two," and if that Amendment had been moved and accepted; because if both Amendments had been accepted the period to be specified for the purposes of this Clause would have been one not only not beginning earlier than 1st July, 1952, but ending not later than 30th June, 1952; that is to say, it would have come to an end slightly before it had begun.
The advantages of that, as, I am sure, the Minister will be the first to see, would have been very great. In the first place, he would have saved administrative costs which, he has told us, amount to about £30,000—a saving, I am quite sure, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have appreciated; second, this very difficult choice he has to make, between paying subsidy on claims from farmers and paying on claims from manufacturers, would


have been greatly mitigated—if the period had been limited to one which ended before it began; third, of course, if we had this period, how much easier would have been the work of this Committee for the rest of tonight!

Mr. Nugent: The reason why this Clause is drafted in this way is, to fulfil two primary considerations which are embedded in the Bill. The whole intention of it is to give confidence to the farmers, so that they will use the maximum amount of fertilisers that are available, to grow the biggest crops that can be grown. In that context, it is essential to try to give some sort of continuity, so that farmers have confidence from one year to another that fertilisers will be at a price that they can afford.
My right hon. and gallant Friend decided to make part of the Special Price Review award in this way, and then put that in the form of a Bill, which has a longer term effect, because of his anxiety about the possible under use of fertilisers while the cost of procuring them is so very high as it is now. The Bill is so drafted that it gives him the chance of flexibility to run on from year to year with this scheme. Normally, he will revise the terms of the scheme from year to year, probably in the light of the new settlement, but he would be at a distinct disadvantage if he was bound by the terms of the Bill to present a fresh scheme each year to effect any changes he wished to make.
1.45 a.m.
There is also the consideration of the merchants, who have to purchase the greater part of these fertilisers abroad, in fairly competitive markets, and unless they have some reasonable confidence in the continuity of demand they will be handicapped in their future buying programmes. There is also the point that it is difficult to see how this scheme will evolve exactly. It is obviously desirable not to have too many jerks in the transmission, so to speak, or the sort of situation we have not now where farmers have not been taking the available supply, warehouses have been choked, and manufacturing capacity has not been used to the full because there was nowhere to put the fertiliser.
It is therefore desirable that the scheme should be designed so as to give the maximum continuity of demand from

year to year. My right hon. Friend will wish to adjust it from year to year according to what is happening, in cost, rate of off-take, and so on, and the scheme is drafted this way to give effect to what I believe the whole Committee would accept as the general philosophy of the Bill.

Mr. G. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has addressed himself not to our Amendment or our arguments, but to different ones. We do not dispute the need for confidence over a long period, or the need for continuity. We are not arguing that the Bill should come to an end next year. We are arguing that the Minister, when he makes what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary called yearly changes, should come to the House and let us know all about them, and that since it is likely that there will need to be flexibility we should decide to proceed year by year. That is all. But that is not the argument to which the hon. Gentleman addressed himself.
This again shows the great difficulty of ever relying on assurances in this House. I have had my share of this particular wickedness, and I am prepared to stand in a white sheet with every other Minister. It is too often the temptation to put one thing in a Bill, give an assurance in the House—in good faith, as we always do—and then we find that somebody writes out a brief in the opposite sense and a wretched Minister has to read it. What the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said is opposed to what the Minister said in specific words on Second Reading.
My hon. Friend has already quoted from the Minister's speech, and a little lower down the same column the right hon. Gentleman said:
I was dealing with the situation as we found it at that time—that is, when he came into office—but when the Government found it was necessary to legislate, the only right and sensible course to take was to see that we took powers, with the approval of the House, to continue this kind of help to the agricultural industry—
and I invite the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the next lines—
if the House in its wisdom, in due course of time, thought it was the right and proper thing to do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 245.]
How would the House be able to exercise its wisdom and express its views unless, in fact, the Minister has to come


to get an extension. I am certain that the Minister was speaking his mind and that of his Department on Second Reading, just as his hon. Friend was tonight; but the two minds and two things are different. If we give power tonight for the Bill to run to 1956, unless the Minister chooses to ask us, the House will not have power to express a view about the wisdom or otherwise of carrying it on.
The only interpretation we can put on the clear and specific words that the Minister used was that this Bill was being introduced to permit of a scheme to give effect to a bargain made at the Special Price Review in autumn last year. That bargain was to date from July last year and was to run out in June this year. He must have a Bill to give him authority to have a scheme for the year ending June, 1952. Although I do not share other people's complete enthusiasm for this method of doing it, we as a party accept that the Price Review was properly conducted and must be given effect to.
The Minister may decide at the annual Price Review now begun that it is a good thing to carry it on, or he may not. But if his words are to have the meaning he meant to attach to them, then obviously he should come back at the end of the year, for which he had to provide in a hurry, and get the view of the House whether it should go on.
That is strengthened by something he said tonight. Earlier the Minister was discussing with us the method of payment, and he said that he will see how this scheme runs and maybe in the next one he may want to do it differently. The assumptions he made there were quite in keeping with his speech on Second Reading. Why should we not have the Bill drafted in the way he is quite clearly assuming that he intends to go about it? He assumed that he would come down to the House for another Order after June of this year. If we leave the Bill in this condition we get into the difficulty that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary got into. Somebody in his Department—obviously not the person who provided the Minister's brief—provides him with a different brief altogether, and we get two Ministers from the same Department saying two different things altogether.
It does not at all follow that we shall get the new Order in July. I press the

Minister and his hon. Friend on this. The first scheme is being very hurriedly put together. It has many weaknesses about it. We ought to have time to consider the next scheme when we are not hurriedly putting right a bargain made six months before us and extending back a year before us. Therefore, I think it is most important that we ought only to authorise this first scheme because it is part of the bargain. The next scheme ought to get the proper approval of the House, because we might then want a lengthy discussion which we cannot have tonight without keeping the Committee an unreasonable time. Incidentally, it is to be hoped that the next Order comes on earlier in the day.
I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister not to treat this lightly. Because there is complete confusion and contradiction between the Minister on Second Reading and again tonight, and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary tonight, I think we are entitled to some other explanation. Of course one wants to make progress, and if the Minister can say he will reconsider this between now and the next stage, I shall accept that on the understanding that we shall return to that at the next stage if he felt unable to put it right. But we cannot have the position that the Bill is drafted in conflict with what the Minister says he specifically intends it to do and then his colleague comes down here and justifies the Bill in contradiction of his speech. I hope the Minister, therefore, will be able to give us some better assurance.

Mr. Nugent: I am sorry that my observations did not satisfy the right hon. Gentleman. I did address myself to the point that he has now said I did not. The argument that I put was that it was framed in this way so that if my right hon. and gallant Friend wished, for some good reason, a scheme to run for more than one year, the Bill as now drafted had the necessary flexibility so that he could do so. I went on to make the point that usually he would probably wish to vary the scheme from year to year, and very likely in relation to the settlement in the Price Review.
However, I realise that the right hon. Gentleman has a point of substance, that this is a scheme of importance where large sums of public money are being spent, and the fact is one of concern to this House. It is a problem to reconcile


the intrinsic needs of the scheme with the necessary measure of Parliamentary control. At this stage I cannot accept the Amendment, but I will give an undertaking that we will think about it to see whether we can suggest any alternative form of words which will give my right hon. and gallant Friend the flexibility which he needs to operate this Bill successfully, at the same time meeting, as far as we can, the points which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and the right hon. Gentleman have made. I cannot give any specific undertaking that we shall be able to do so, but we will try to do so.

Mr. T. Fraser: I am obliged to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the undertaking that he has just given to us. I think he need have no fear that if this date is altered the agricultural industry will be filled with alarm and despondency. If he or his Ministry had thought that the farmers assumed when this Bill was published that the fertiliser subsidy would automatically run until at least 1956, they must have had a shock when they read the words uttered by the Minister which I quoted a few minutes ago. He made it quite clear that there was no undertaking that the subsidy would run for as long as that.
Speaking personally, I hope it will go for much longer than that. I want to give an assurance to the farmers and I want the farmers to have confidence in the continuity of some such scheme. However, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has now appreciated that there is considerable substance in the point we have made. He has given an undertaking that he and his right hon. and gallant Friend will have another look at this before the next stage of the Bill, and I have pleasure in trying to discontinue this part of our discussion.
In asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, I must say that we feel strongly upon the matter. We know the Minister cannot say specifically now what he is going to do but, if he is not able to put something on the Order Paper later, he must not be surprised if we do. We hope it will not be necessary.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Peter Roberts: I have listened carefully to the arguments. In considering the assurance

which the Minister gives, may I say that the question of the date and the length of time of running of the scheme should not be shortened, but, if possible, some method of Parliamentary control, year to year, should be inserted? I feel the suggestion curtailing the date is too drastic, but I appreciate the point made that there should be Parliamentary control from year to year.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. George Brown: I beg to move, page 2, line 39, to leave out from "be", to the end of line 42, and to insert:
extended by not more than twelve months on any one such occasion.
We are dealing with a very difficult and rather complicated Clause, or, at any rate, Subsection of the Clause. As it is drafted, it is somewhat difficult to get the hang of it. I confess, frankly, that I have had some difficulty in framing an Amendment which would give effect to our intention and fit in with the somewhat cumbersome wording that necessarily, perhaps, has been put in the Clause. We have had the argument whether the first scheme ought to be in a position to run for five years. The argument now before the Committee is whether we should pass a Bill which not only provides for schemes over the next five years but, at this stage and time, provides for schemes to continue forever and leaves the Bill so widely drafted that once the first five years are over, the next scheme could go on forever.
Here again, I am sure the Minister would say, "Of course, I will never do that." The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, too, would say, that the Minister will want to come back to Parilament and ask the House about it. But the Bill does not do that. There is, in fact, no limit. I have done some hunting of precedents since I swapped over to this side. I have some precedents with me if the Committee would like to have them quoted. I cannot find easily a Bill which took authority to spend annually £10 million, which could be extended to £50 million—that is, £10 million a year for five years, as the Bill is at present drafted —without further Parliamentary control


and then can go on, without any limit to its life, spending £10 million, as can be done under this Bill.
This is not a Bill to give farmers £10 million because of the Price review. This is a Bill to give them £10 million in perpetuity and without any further Parliamentary control at the end of five years, unless the Minister chooses to ask for it. I had the somewhat melancholy experience the other day of leaving this bench and going to a back bench to do battle on behalf of the agricultural industry with the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), whose views I thought most misguided and rather damaging. Frankly, having done that, I am not willing to be put in the position of having to argue that I am prepared to go to this extent or that the industry needs to go to this extent to provide a subvention, the limit of which is not controlled by anybody in the House. We want continuity and confidence. We will not get it by buying it in this way. And again I say one cannot rely only upon an assurance from the Minister that he would not do it.
The safest thing for everybody is to put in this Bill that it can be extended for one year at a time. By six or seven years this scheme will be beginning to be a pretty long job and we shall know where we are. And if we are to have it go on for ever we should provide for that by permanent legislation and not by statutory instrument. It is in the interest of everybody, and certainly in the interest of Parliamentary government, that we should have annual control over the scheme after five years. I hope the Minister will accept our Amendment or put down a similar one of his own to ensure that after 1956, or after 1952 if he accepts our previous point, any extension shall be by annual extension.

Mr. Hale: It seems to me this is quite the most objectionable Clause in the Bill from many points of view, and I am very glad that the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) made the intervention he did. This is not a party matter. This practice has been going on for a considerable time and it is getting worse. I have never been in favour of delegated legislation at any time, although one realises it is a necessary evil.
No doubt examples can be culled from the statutes because we do not notice all these extensions, but I do not recollect seeing anything before quite as remarkable as this. The only redeeming feature is that it has to be passed affirmatively by each House, though one knows, even so, how infrequently there is opportunity to discuss a matter of this kind.
There is something coming gradually into force which is very much worse than delegated legislation—which, after all, has a Parliamentary origin and remote control. It is the sort of thing we had in the Home Guard Act and again in this Bill in which Parliament is asked to sign a blank cheque or a series of blank cheques. And not merely sign blank cheques but a blank authority to blank persons to renew them and to use our signatures on a series of cheques to be issued by them under powers delegated under this provision.
This is getting quite fantastic and objectionable. I know I should prove out of order if I argued this point now, but even if I am out of order now I hope I may develop it on the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill where discussion of it might be more appropriate. The position is that the scheme can be issued at any time, that it specifies a date and that that date can be extended by a future scheme. And so one goes on as long as one does not let the final scheme expire. I see the Joint Parliamentary Secretary smiling, but I have read the words. I agree that they are pretty unintelligible, but I do not regard that as conclusive evidence of merit.
The words say:
Provided that provision may be made on one or more occasions by an order made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State acting jointly, and subject to the approval of the Treasury,—
We have all three witches together at once. No one has specified what would happen if they do not agree—
for authorising the period to be so specified to be one ending not later than a date specified in the order, being a date subsequent to the said thirtieth day of June or to the date specified in the last preceding order, as the case may be.
So far as I know that really means that it goes on for ever. The final date is specified as 1956, but under the power of the first sentence the date is 1957. Then in 1957 a new order is issued push-


ing the date further on in precisely the same manner as the example of the bigger fleas having smaller fleas upon their backs to bite them, except that the size of the fleas would go up instead of coming down as in the biological example to which I have referred.
I suggest that this is really going too far. What the Committee is asked to pass tonight is a Bill which authorises a completely undefined sum of money for a generalised purpose which we are told is being particularised in practice. We are told that the Government are taking powers to deal with the whole range of commodities, but are not prepared to do it on a definite financial basis because we are told that we can go up to a half and from a half down to nothing, but that it is going to be about a third for a period which is barely specified and which can be extended from time to time without reference to anybody except this gentleman in the Treasury to whom reference has been made in the course of our deliberations.
This is not a party matter, but is it not bringing us back to the gentleman who returned from the Colonies and took a look at this House and said, "Do you still go on with that nonsense there?" Any hon. Member reading this Bill and this Clause will come to the conclusion that the Committee is being asked to do much what the Cabinet have to do in the first instance, to give a general approval to the details of a scheme or to the proposals of a scheme which normally would come before Parliament and would be dealt with in detail in Committee line by line as we did with Bills some six years ago. Now the Committee are being asked to give a general approval to a general benevolent intention.

Brigadier Christopher Peto: You have said that already.

Mr. Hale: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman wish me to give way, because if he really has anything to say he should rise to his feet.

Brigadier Peto: I was just remarking that the hon. Gentleman had already made the same remark at least once if not twice before.

Mr. Hale: I venture to say that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to HANSARD he will find that his state-

ment is devoid of both truth and accuracy. Even if I am wrong, the observations I am making are important, and I will make them again. Since the undertaking was given to the Patronage Secretary at about 20 minutes to one, I do not think I have used more than five or ten minutes of the time of the Committee and I have withdrawn every Amendment standing in my name. In these circumstances it is a little discourteous of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has himself taken no part in this discussion to make such a remark. The lack of agricultural knowledge shown by hon. Members opposite in this debate is astonishing in a Government which purports to represent agricultural interests. I think we should be spared discourteous comments of that kind. This is a very serious matter, and I hope that on Report the Minister will be prepared to be as reasonable as he has been in many matters tonight. We have appreciated his attitude very much.
I will conclude by saying that the House must retain control over its affairs. We said at an earlier stage that matters were being referred to the Treasury, but on this Clause we are now getting to the fact that matters will not be referred to this House or only in the form of a brief extending order giving a date which will be forced through by a vote, which will not be discussed on its merits, and which can only be taken in the form of an affirmative vote. I do support my right hon. Friend in this matter, which is a serious one, and one to which some attention should be given,

2.15 a.m.

Mr. Nugent: Perhaps I could shorten this discussion by saying that we shall be pleased to give the undertaking which the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have asked for. This is much related to the previous point, and we shall be willing to look at both of them again before Report to see what can be done to meet the intrinsic needs of the Bill and at the same time give the necessary measure of Parliamentary control.

Mr. G. Brown: I am grateful to the Minister and his hon. Friend for meeting us and must say that anyone who thinks we have been overstating the case must have regard to the importance of the


points we have raised and need to look at them again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO SCHEMES.)

Mr. G. Brown: I beg to move in page 3, line 9, to leave out paragraph (b).
This has been put down to elucidate from the Minister, if we can, what his intentions are, and to express some misgivings about what has been said before. We recognise that there must be what the lawyers call a de minimus provision in this Act, and that there must be some point at which it is administratively impossible to pay the subsidy. What we would like to know from the Minister at this stage, and without going into too much detail, is what minimum he has in mind. A figure of 10 cwt. was mentioned earlier in this discussion. That figure is I believe too large. I will not go back over the previous discussion, but it will be made difficult for many people who ought to have fertiliser in the interests of food production to obtain it. They would be unable to join associations, because of their isolation, nor would they be able to get 10 cwt. or less and the whole value of the schemes would be lost.
I will not develop the argument now, but I think this is of great importance to the crofters of Scotland and in my own constituency in Derbyshire. We cannot let it go by, and I would be glad if one of the Ministers would tell us what is in mind about the minimum figure, but I hope that if it is intended to say 10 cwt. whoever is to reply will have a quick think about it, because it is a figure which I cannot agree is a minimum.

Mr. Snadden: I think I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he asks for. We will reconsider the minimum of 10 cwt. mentioned during the Second Reading debate. At that time it was our intention, but we recognise the Scottish aspect raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).
If we accept the amendment on the Order Paper it would have the effect of removing any minimum; and we would have to pay a contribution which might be less than £1. We do agree that people who use small quantities of fertilisers, less than 10 cwt., should not all be denied the subsidy. We do not want to deny the benefits under the Bill to these people but as I say we could not possibly accept the abolition of the minimum.
I would like to inform the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that township committees will rank as associations under this Bill and the crofters will be able to take advantage of the Clause of the Bill which refers to associations. We do not have the same organisations in Scotland but township committees will rank for benefit under the Bill. I hope that the assurance I have given that we will re-examine the minimum on which contributions will be paid will remove the desire for this Amendment. I cannot say what it will be at this stage: it will be for the Order when it comes out to specify the minimum. I cannot promise that very small amounts will be taken into account but I can give an assurance that we shall examine the position very carefully with regard to the needs of the crofting areas in the North of Scotland.

Mr. G. Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for seeing that the Opposition is proceeding step by step to make this Bill a very much better Bill than when it came into the House. But before I formally ask leave to withdraw the Amendment I hope that when the hon. Gentleman reconsiders the minimum he will not link it up with the ploughing-up grant alone.
I can understand from the campaign for increased food production generally—we had an earlier discussion about allotment holders—that for increased food production it is essential to have the ploughing-up grant. I hope the minimum will be sufficiently small to bring these chaps in as well.
It would be useful on Report if this matter was referred to again but perhaps that is not possible. I would, however, hope the Minister might be able to give us some idea then as to the figure he has in mind. We only put the Amendment down for information and but for the


fact that the Minister has been so forthcoming our cohorts would have gone into the Division Lobby and forced him against his will. But we are delighted not to force a Division and I have great pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move in page 3, line 24, to leave out from "fertilisers" to the end of line 25.
The reason for our moving this Amendment is that we just do not know what the words we propose be left out mean. We think the last words are very wide indeed and we are wondering why they have been added to the sub-section at all. I would like the Minister to tell us if he thinks that these words will be useful to him sometime for particular fertilisers and if he has in mind a more generous fertiliser subsidy in respect of fertilisers for a particular purpose.
I am not sure that he has that in mind. We know, for instance, the great burden imposed upon crofters in the far North whose fertilisers always cost more than they do in other parts of the country because of transport costs. Has the Minister that sort of thing in mind? It might well be taken into account. If he wants these words in order to make provision for that sort of thing, I will willingly withdraw the Amendment, which I move simply in order to get an explanation of the words.

Sir T. Dugdale: That is the point of these words. I admit, frankly, that at first sight I found difficulty in understanding what was the implication. If we accepted the Amendment it would mean that there could be no difference in the rates of subsidy except between one kind of fertiliser and another and that we could not have a selective subsidy of the kind which may be necessary in the course of the operation of the Bill.
I can give the Committee a complete assurance on this point, which will also meet the point of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale); the power to be exercised under these words can be exercised only in such a way that Parliament will have the opportunity to examine the circumstances of any selective subsidy.

Mr. Fraser: In view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. G. Brown: I beg to move, in page 3, line 31, to leave out subsection (5), and to insert:
(5) No statutory instrument making, varying, or revoking a scheme under this Act shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
This raises the long-debated, time-honoured argument as to whether schemes made under an enabling Bill, with no specific details in the Bill, and with everything left to the scheme, should be subject to affirmative Resolution procedure, put down in Government time at a time when it can be properly debated, or to the negative Resolution procedure, with the consequent difficulties of having an adequate discussion.
In view of the arguments which have been made, I need not develop this at great length. I see in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's eye a gleam which warms my heart. In the past 2½ hours we have improved his Bill out of all knowledge and I do not think he is likely to spoil the good work at this stage. If I thought he was likely to do so, then, as I warned him on Second Reading, I have some excellent quotations from his own past speeches and performance on this subject. They would make interesting reading, as did the quotations which I read on the night when he spoke on the Statutory Directions Order.
I am not asking him to do what we did not do. When we introduced the petrol scheme—a pleasure which my right hon. Friend the then Minister, left to me—I conceded to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on that occasion the very thing I am asking tonight. I have looked up the proceedings on the Sea Fish Industry Bill. In that case, we did not even have to be pressed on the point; we took the step ourselves. In the HANSARD report of the discussion in Committee the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is reported as having said:
We are gratified to see that the Government have adopted this attitude in Clause 6 in relation to the presentation of schemes. I presume that they thought that the schemes were principle and that it would be right to have the positive procedure."—OFFICIAL REPORT Standing Committee C, 20th February, 1951 c. 120.


He went on to object to something else which we were doing by the negative Resolution procedure—the Regulations—and I mention that in case he has in mind that some things might be done under the Bill by negative Resolution procedure.
However, we certainly provided for the affirmative Resolution procedure. We thought it the right thing to do in connection with schemes. We still think it the right thing to do. We hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will have second thoughts about this. I should not like it to go forth from here that he has wholly deserted his past faith. I am glad to come to his rescue, and to be the means whereby he regains salvation. I will leave the matter there, in the confident expectation that he will concede the point.

2.30 a.m.

Sir T. Dugdale: I hope that the Committee will forgive me if, at this late hour, or early hour, I make a rather longer contribution than I have been doing during the last hour or so, because I think that this is a very important subject which we must consider. The choice between the affirmative and negative Resolution procedures in matters of this nature always does give rise to debate. I think it is right and proper that the issue should be decided in this Chamber.
It is not very easy—indeed, I think that hon. Members will agree with me that it is really impossible—to lay down definite principles to decide which procedure should be followed irrespective of the Measure. I have pressed very strongly myself on more than one occasion, as the right hon. Gentleman has reminded me, when I was on the benches opposite, for the use of the affirmative Resolution procedure I recall, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that on at least one occasion my predecessor made a concession, and altered the negative Resolution procedure to the affirmative. I equally remember other occasions on which he successfully resisted all my arguments to make the change.
I suppose that, in general, it must be expected that those who happen to sit on the Government benches will normally prefer the negative procedure, because by it business can be expedited. It takes

longer to operate the affirmative procedure, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) knows from many years of experience. That is a much longer procedure—longer even before it gets to the House of Commons. Those in Opposition usually prefer the affirmative procedure because of the greater opportunities it offers to the Opposition of expressing their views about policy and administration. I should like to say at this stage that it will be my practice as long as I am responsible for the Ministry of Agriculture to judge each Bill on its merits in respect of the choice between the two procedures.
I listened to the case of the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion, and I should like to show him that I appreciate his approach to this subject. I think that a case has been made out on this Bill for the affirmative procedure, especially as, in the main, it is an enabling Bill, which enables schemes to be brought before the House of Commons for consideration and passage into law. For these reasons I am prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
But from that I would like to make this suggestion. I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will recognise that whereas it is right for these schemes to come before the House for affirmative Resolution, if every Statutory Instrument had to be laid before Parliament in draft, and approved by Resolution of each House, there would be a considerable danger of Amendments of an administrative nature and of comparatively little importance having to be subject to this procedure, and much time and labour would be involved. If it were possible I would prefer to see whether we could devise some compromise under which only Statutory Instruments concerned with matters of prime importance were subject to affirmative Resolution procedure and those of administrative detail or minor matters subject to negative Resolution.
I propose to look at that point between now and Report stage to see if it is possible to devise a procedure of that sort. Alternatively, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this, a scheme which may be made under the powers of this Bill might include a paragraph, relating, for example, to rates of


contribution, similar to that included in the agricultural lime scheme made under Section 97 of the Agriculture Act 1947, to the effect that Ministers may, with the approval of the Treasury, vary the rates of contribution for various reasons. I shall took at that alternative as well, but for the moment I am prepared at this stage of the proceedings to accept the Amendment.

Mr. G. Brown: I am very grateful to the Minister. I understand that he is accepting the Amendment, and so that goes into the Bill. Therefore, if he wants to do anything about the reservations he has made he will have to come forward with fresh Amendments. That I think is satisfactory. We can reserve our discussions about those reservations until we see whether he comes forward with any Amendments.
For myself, after some experience at the Ministry, I find it difficult to conceive any alteration in a Statutory Instrument under a scheme of this kind which would fill the minor role he has described, and if he amended it on those lines he would be taking away the whole of what he is prepared to concede. Similarly, financial control depends wholly on our control over the schemes, and any proposal to be able to change the rates of contribution would seem to me to be open to the same objection. But we can reserve our discussions on these points until they are brought forward, and I am grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for accepting this Amendment.

Sir T. Dugdale: I should like to make it clear that if I adopted the second alternative there would be no Amendment to the Bill. It would come up under the scheme, and we could debate it when the scheme comes before the House.

Mr. P. Roberts: I should like to say how glad I am to hear what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said. I am very glad that he has expressed the views he has. Personally, I am not sure that it does depend on which side of the House one is. In principle, it is the same, whichever side one is on. I am particularly glad in this case, in view of the very wide powers under the subsection of the Clause, which could, I imagine, give the Minister power to differentiate between one farmer and another. It would be very useful to

debate that again when it comes before Parliament.

Mr. Ede: I am not quite sure what the right hon. and gallant, Gentleman contemplates doing. As far as I can follow there are only two schemes—either a positive Order, which he has conceded in this Amendment, or procedure by Prayer. I felt at one time that he was going to try to make some hybrid arrangement, which he hoped he would get into the Bill. I do not know how he would do it. Now he talks about taking power in the scheme to do something. Is that to avoid having a Prayer?

Sir T. Dugdale: No, taking power in the scheme which would enable the Minister, with the approval of the Treasury, to vary the rate of contributions. There is an existing scheme where this procedure does work, and I am telling the Committee that I will examine it to see if we can get the results we want. Although in nearly every case we shall want to use the affirmative Resolution procedure, there may be some quite minor arrangements of an administrative nature which the House would readily think ought to be done but which we should want to do without going through all the affirmative Resolution procedure.

Mr. G. Brown: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is himself confusing the issue. What he has said about administrative changes and minor measures has nothing to do with the provision in the scheme, to which he referred, giving him power to vary the rates of contribution without coming to the House. I would not like it. I would think it a way of trying to get round the major concession that he has given, and I would try my hardest to withhold approval.

Mr. Ede: May I advise the right hon. Gentleman, if he tries it on, not to speak of the approval of the Treasury in so emphatic a tone if my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) happens to be present?

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and question proposed, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Mikardo: May I say a word about subsection (1, d), the subject of an Amendment which, doubtless for excel-


lent reasons, has not been called? I am hoping to warn the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary about the danger into which they are running themselves by making provision for inspectors to go to manufacturing establishments, and presumably to farms, to inspect fertilisers that are to be the subject of subsidies. They have perhaps not been long enough in office to realise fully what intense fury is evoked in organs of the Press by any provision that allows for inspection to see that the law is carried out.
There are some organs of public opinion—without making a party point, they are usually organs that support the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite—which will stand for the introduction of almost any law so long as no measures are taken to see that the law is not evaded. But so soon as an organisation is set up to inspect what is being done, then all hell's fury is let loose upon the poor unfortunate Minister or, as more often happens, for a reason I do not pretend to know, on the head of the unfortunate Under-Secretary or Parliamentary Secretary.
2.45 a.m.
Hon. Members will recall the terrific campaign which was let loose when inspectors of the former Government were christened, in a brilliant piece of wit by one of the newspapers, "Cooper's Snoopers." I warn the Parliamentary Secretary in particular that as soon as this paragraph is put into force he may find as a headline in a morning paper the term "Nugie's Stooges" or something of that sort. I beg them to look at this for their own sakes, because they will be represented as being Stalinesque operators of a totalitarian State if at any time an inspector goes to a farm to see that the provisions of the law are being properly carried out.

Mr. G. Brown: I think this is positively my last appearance tonight and I hope that I may be forgiven for raising a point which I made twice during the course of the Second Reading and which I then gave notice that I would raise again tonight unless somebody said something about it. The Minister repeatedly, both in his original announcement last November and again on Second Reading, said that it was his intention in the first scheme to limit the contribution to one

form of fertiliser only, namely, phosphatic fertilisers.
I asked him on Second Reading to specify to which kind of fertilisers the subsidies would apply. I then asked why he was choosing to specify phosphatic fertilisers in the first scheme because it was my impression, and that of some folk to whom I had spoken and that of some authorities I had read, that this class of fertiliser is in short supply.
I said that if we set out specially to subsidise this class of fertiliser we might do harm because it would lead to a run on it and the smaller man, slower off the mark with less money, would get less and not more. I interrupted the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to make this point when he was speaking, and he repeated that he thought there would be enough. I made the point again in my speech and hoped that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland would give us the figures, but he did not and we had nothing more than this from the hon. Gentleman:
We believe that our resources will be sufficient to meet any foreseeable increase in the demand for phosphatics of any kind arising out of the subsidy. We could not say that in regard to nitrogenous fertilisers.
Then I asked the Under-Secretary to give the figures on which his belief was based. He went on:
I do not think that it would be possible for anyone to produce the figures. I certainly have not got them here, and I do not think that they can be got."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 302.]
I do not emphasise the obvious debating point there that if nobody has the figures it is difficult to know on what anybody can base the belief that there will be enough, and, therefore, my belief remains as good as his. He might say, "You are on that side and I am on this. I will take a chance on my belief. If I am wrong, so be it; if you are wrong, it does not matter." But we cannot leave it there. I do not believe, from my knowledge of the Department and of those who operate this section of the Department, that we cannot make a close estimate of the current supplies of phosphatic fertilisers.
I just do not believe that the manufacturers of these various fertilisers, which come under the heading, do not know within reasonable limits what they are turning out and putting on the market. If we have the figure of supplies, that


is half the figure the hon. Gentleman told me could not be obtained. That leaves the most difficult side, which is the demand. It ought to be possible to make an estimate with all the resources available to the Department what the current consumption is. I ask him—because I believe we may be making a mistake—to give us some evidence on which he bases his belief that when he has cheapened phosphatic fertilisers, he will still have enough to go round.
I am still doubtful whether the Minister would be doing the right thing if he were to select this class of fertilisers alone. I quoted to him, when I spoke during the Second Reading debate, from the National Farmers' Union Information Service document of July, 1951, which, at the end of a very interesting and long article on fertiliser supplies and prospects, said:
There is no immediate threat to supplies of nitrogenous fertilisers"—
to which the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland says there is a threat—
The superphosphate position is serious."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 280.]
Potash imports are expected to be adequate, provided there is no increase in demand. The only one they are prepared to give an assurance there is enough of, is nitrogenous fertilisers. Today, I was looking in a journal and came across a report of a paper by a Ministry official, Dr. Pizer, Eastern Province Soil Chemist. He was talking of fertiliser policy and of fertiliser husbandry and said that the build up of phosphates in some areas in this country was causing trouble. So, we have the Minister going out specially to pep up the use of a fertiliser, which some experts, including the N.F.U., think is in short supply and his own officer, at the same time, declaring that in some areas we are using rather too much of it.
There are other authorities on the same matter. In the "Farmer and Stockbreeder" of 29th January, 1952, there is an article by Mr. R. Trow-Smith criticising very heavily the Minister's decision to concentrate on phosphatic fertilisers and emphasising again what Dr. Pizer said, that in some soils in England we have been using too much of it and that what was needed was the use of nitrogenous fertilisers. Then, there is the writing of Dr. D. H. Robinson, Crop Husbandry Officer, West

Midland Province, who, in "The Farmer's Weekly," of 4th January, 1952, develops the general argument that really the need is for nitrogenous fertilisers. Again, there is this complete confusion between what the Minister's own officers are saying and what he is saying. Dr. Robinson says:
Today, nitrogen is plentiful.
The Under-Secretary of State says it is not. I suggest we have jumped into a decision to choose only phosphatics which many authorities think may give us a more unbalanced use of fertilisers when we want a more balanced use. The Minister justified the decision to do it on the grounds the other fertilisers are too short, and yet his own officers, two of whom I have quoted—the Crop Husbandry Officer for the West Midland Province and the soil chemist for the Eastern Province—have both said in the last four weeks, and one as recently as yesterday, that nitrogenous fertilisers are plentiful. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity tonight to give us the figures which make him so sure that there is sufficient phosphatic fertiliser and to comment on this obvious difference between what he has told us and what his officials are telling the farmers.

Mr. Nugent: I will reply first, if I may, to the point raised by the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) on the provision for inspection in this Clause. I recognise with him that there are many sections of public opinion which do not take readily to provision for inspection, and indeed none of us wants it when it can be dispensed with. But the provision that is here is the simple provision that has been in the lime scheme for 15 years or more. It gives the Ministry power to make inspection where suspicion is aroused and the Ministry think it necessary to inspect. In practice it has not proved onerous, nor has it given rise to headlines.
On supply, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) made two points: first, why phosphates at all, and, second, are there enough? The right hon. Gentleman will know from his considerable experience as a Parliamentary Secretary and a Minister that whatever action he took in a Government Department, and however good it was, there would be somebody to criticise it. Therefore, he will not be


surprised if he finds independent experts criticising even as good a measure as my right hon. and gallant Friend has announced he will take.

Mr. G. Brown: Even the Ministry's own officers criticise.

Mr. Nugent: Our officers are free to criticise if they so wish, but I do not think that should necessarily influence the mind of my right hon. and gallant Friend who has a very good grasp of this problem. The reason why a subsidy was put on phosphates was because, during the last year, there was an exceptional rise in the price of phosphates, very much more than in the price of other fertilisers, and a rise which could never have been anticipated at the February Price Review, 1951. When he was considering how best to restore the position as negotiated at the February Price Review my right hon. and gallant Friend considered it could be best done by giving this subsidy on the phosphate fertilisers.
The right hon. Member for Belper will recognise that the various technical views he has cited do not by any means prove there is a general over-application of phosphates in this country. I think everybody would agree that throughout the country there is still a really severe need for additional phosphates on most of our grassland. But leaving aside this technical point—with which I am sure the Committee do not wish to occupy their minds at this early hour of the morning—I am sure that the very steep rise in the price of phosphates proportionately to all other fertilisers was a justification for the subsidy.
The accumulation of phosphatic manures that occurred in the late part of last year and the beginning of this year was more than confirmation that this move that my right hon. and gallant Friend took to revive the demand for this fertiliser was the right one to take. The estimated supply position for the current year, that is 1951–52, is 316,000 tons. That is for the United Kingdom. The easiest way to get some idea of what the demand might be is to consider the actual use in the previous year, 1950–51, which was 423,000 tons, about 100,000 tons more than in the current year.
In comparing these figures I am sure the Committee will have in mind the fact that there were very heavy purchases

of all fertilisers and particularly phosphates in the summer of last year in anticipation of the price rise. All farmers knew that prices were about to go up steeply, and therefore every farmer who could raise the cash or credit proceeded to lay in all the fertilisers he could.
3.0 a.m.
That means that quite a large proportion—the actual figure can only be guessed at—of the figure in 1950–51 was stock carried by the farmers on their farms for use in the year 1951–52. I think that if allowance is made for that stock at which we can only guess, and if at the same time we take into account the rather serious falling off in demand in the last few months, which has only just started to revive again, we are safe in reckoning that with this supply coming forward we shall have sufficient to meet any reasonable demand that we can anticipate in the next four months until June this year.

Mr. G. Brown: Can the hon. Gentleman give us, either for the last three months or the last year, the rate at which the offtake has been running so that we can see what the decline is?

Mr. Nugent: I have not that figure. I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman in general terms that in the first two months of this year and the last month of last year the offtake from the factories was so small that the manufacturers were obliged to reduce their manufacturing capacity because all their stores were full and the farmers were not taking delivery of it. It is quite evident, therefore, that the demand fell to an abnormally low level. I am sorry that it is not possible to give the right hon. Gentleman the actual figures.
I think the Committee can be satisfied from the figures I have given that the phosphates available in the present year, that is, the year ending 30th June next, will be sufficient to meet the demand. Indeed, the subsidy which has been put in has been a timely necessity in order to get the farmers to take up the manures available.
There is another point very much related to this, and that is that my right hon. and gallant Friend will, naturally, be considering his scheme for the next fertiliser year which begins on 1st July this year in the light of the supply and demand position which occurs over the next few months, and the price, and so,


on. In the light of these factors he will then be able to decide what, if any, is the appropriate rate of subsidy on one fertiliser or another in order to ensure that the farmers take up all the available fertilisers.
I think that on the figures I have given I can assure the Committee that there are enough phosphatic fertilisers to meet the demands of the farmers as stimulated by the subsidy which we now ask the Committee to approve.

Mr. Hale: There are one or two points that arise from what the Parliamentary Secretary has just said. He said he based his estimate of the amount of phosphatic fertiliser available on the fact that farmers had bought up large stocks before 1st July in anticipation of prices increasing, and that in estimating the amount to be required they have not taken into account the substantial stocks carried by the farmers. If it is true why is his estimate of the cost of contributions the same, not only for this year, but for every year? We have an elaborate statement of figures introductory to this Bill suggesting that in the current year there will be expenditure of £13 million, £3 million of which will be back dated. The estimate is based on the solid cost of £10 million for 12 months, and if I am correct in this the hon. Gentleman cannot have taken into account the stocks carried by the farmers. I gather that I am wrong.

Mr. Nugent: I am not sure whether I have understood the hon. Gentleman's point. The fertiliser year is from 1st July to 30th June, but the financial year is the ordinary financial year, which does not coincide with the fertiliser year. In the coming financial year, 1952–53, sufficient funds must be provided to meet the subsidy on fertilisers purchased since 1st July last and before 31st March this year. I am not sure if I have completely covered the hon. Gentleman's point.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman also read the words before the figures he quoted from the Financial Memorandum:
On the assumption that contributions on this basis continue for more than one year…?

Mr. Hale: I realise that it is dealing with a carry-back from Budget to Bud-bet. If I am told the words are ambiguous I have nothing more to say.

Mr. Nugent: That is the estimate for the current year. It is proposed that it should be at the rate of £10 million.

Mr. Hale: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It is the point I was making that in the first £10 million there has been no allowance for the huge stocks farmers are carrying. I have the greatest of respect for the agricultural industry and those who are bearing this burden, but it is a remarkable statement to come at the end of this debate that huge stocks are being carried. I do not want to say one word out of place about any worthy industry, but it is remarkable that apparently large stocks were transferred on the day preceding that to which this order is to be back-dated.

Mr. Nugent: I wonder if I could help to make the point clear to the hon. Gentleman. The announcement that fertiliser prices were going up was made a month or two before the date on which they did rise. During that period farmers who had the cash or credit proceeded to lay in large stocks. For the purposes of this Bill the first purchases of fertiliser to qualify for the subsidy will be those purchased after July 1, last year, and that was after the prices had risen.

Mr. Hale: Of course, and may I make it clear from the relevant figures which I have turned up. These figures varied for high content fertiliser as much as this —June, 44.4 in thousands of tons July, 13. That is a difference of 31,000 tons, and if the hon. Gentleman takes the average figures he will see that the average has also dropped. In other words 31,000 tons changed hands in this relevant period. I do not know how a check is to be made on the date of delivery and how the Regulations will provide for the possibility of mis-statement in this matter.
If the money is paid in advance and delivery takes place after 30th June I understand that the man will qualify for the subsidy. That is a point the hon. Gentleman may think worthy of consideration when the Minister has the scheme. We cannot usefully discuss it now. I heard the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement about "statutory" with genuine joy because I think it appropriate. We wanted to see these figures for a good many years. I do not know who is going to carry out


these transactions. Will it be inspectors, or will the Ministry use the normal police force for their inquiries?
In our experience the village bobby knows what is happening in the village a good deal better than an inspector—who is, in many cases, a retired police officer—and there is sometimes a great deal of jealousy between the two. It is very rare that the village policeman is not very much better for these investigations and to bring the facts to light than someone who has come 30 or 40 miles on a travelling allowance from the Ministry. I hope he will look into that.

Mr. G. Brown: Before we finally part with the Bill I should like to make a comment on what has just been said by the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). I am glad we have got these figures at last from a particularly reluctant Ministry. They show that consumption is running at the rate of 100,000 tons per year more than supply. I must say the conclusions I draw are not those which the Ministry of Agriculture is, in fact, drawing from them. They reinforce the argument that the Minister is assuming, much to much, that there is a sufficient supply of phosphate fertilisers to meet the increased demand the scheme is expected to bring.
When we come to the scheme the Minister should be prepared for quite a considerable discussion on it and at a time of day when a discussion can be both useful and understood outside. I will not pursue this point any further. We have had a very useful discussion and I again give my personal thanks to the Minister for the way in which he has met our points.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with an Amendment; as amended, to be considered this day and to be printed [Bill 61].

Orders of the Day — EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [20th February], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

3.15 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: A little time ago I was interrupted when I was addressing the House on the Bill and I want to complete the remarks I was making. Before I do so, I want to deal with a point raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward). I have given her notice of what I shall say and I hope she will take an opportunity later to deal with the matter.
During the discussion of business, by way of what the Prime Minister would call an interrogative speech, the hon. Lady said something to suggest that in some way I had been discourteous to the House. She said:
I understand that there was an agreement last night that the Export Guarantees Bill should be through by 10 o'clock, but that that agreement was not kept. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House ask the Leader of the Opposition whether they have abandoned the principle of agreement, and whether, in future, he will be able to control his own followers in these matters?—"[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 432.]
It is only fair to the House to say that that statement was completely and utterly without foundation. Had the hon. Lady been on speaking terms with the Minister of Health—I can only suppose that some disagreement over the National Health Service Bill prevented that—and had she asked him, he undoubtedly would have told her so. I think it was a little in bad taste that the right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question, because he must have known, as she would have known had she asked him, that there was no agreement whatever.
Had the hon. Lady listened to, or read the report of, the debate she would have noticed that the President of the Board of Trade said:
…it is, after all, an important subject. It covers the export trade from this country to the whole of the world."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 20th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 355.]
To suggest that my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench would agree in some behind-the-scene way that a discussion covering the export trade of this country


to the whole of the world should be disposed of in an hour-and-a-half or something of that sort is, I suggest, a proposition which would not have been believed by anybody on that side of the House. I regret that the hon. Lady should have said what she did.
I can only say this. Democracy does not consist in secret agreements being made to avoid discussion on questions of interest, and I hope the hon. Lady will remember that. If she cares to intervene I will give way, or possibly she may prefer to make a speech later.

Miss Irene Ward: When the hon. Gentleman asked that question, I was about to say that I should prefer to wait until he has finished his speech.

Mr. Bing: Perhaps I spoke rather hotly, and after I have finished what I hope will be a review of the whole matter before us, we shall all be a little less hot-tempered.

Miss Ward: I am not hot-tempered.

Mr. Bing: Perhaps I am. I was about to say that we should invite the House to give the Measure the same scrutiny as the then Minister of Works asked should be given to the previous Bill. It was an exactly similar Bill to this; it consolidated existing legislation and it contained two Clauses, identical to the two Clauses here. The discussion proceeded on the same lines as on this Bill—"Why is this extra cover required?" It is interesting to note that on that occasion the present Minister of Works said:
It really does lie with the Government to give very detailed reasons why they want another £40 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 251.]
That was in regard to what is Clause 2 of this Bill, and of course the present Government are asking, not for £40 million, but for £50 million. Why it should be democratic, when hon. Members opposite are in opposition, to have to go very carefully into why the Government need the extra £40 million, and when they are the Government it should be right and proper to pass the extra £50 million on the nod, is a problem which I hope the hon. Lady will deal with when she discusses this aspect of the matter.
It may be convenient to the House if I seek in a word or two to recapitulate

what the Secretary for Overseas Trade said about the Bill. It is contained in two Clauses, one of which raises by 50 per cent. or £250 million the guarantees given under a Section of the 1949 Act. That Section is the one which refers to what, for convenience in debate, one may call the commercial side—the purely commercial transactions. The second Clause is the one which raises by 50 per cent. the amount which may be devoted to what one may call, for convenience, the special types of insurance. The discussions, therefore, proceeded on the same lines as those of 1949 and those we had on the 1951 Act, though that was a matter far narrower than this.
On both the previous Measures the main interest of hon. Gentlemen opposite was that the scheme should have adequate publicity and that it should have adequate staff. I do not intend to deal with either of those two points at very great length because I do not think they are the most important issues raised on this matter, but the Secretary for Overseas Trade may remember that one of his first acts in office was to sign the preface to this excellent pamphlet, "Sell More: Risk Less," issued by his Department Who distributed it for his Department? Why, the Central Office of Information. What was the first thing his colleagues did? It was to cut the allocation for that body. So it is important to see, when one is claiming, on the one hand, that there should be more publicity, that one is not, on the other hand, destroying the means whereby that publicity can be obtained.
The second question was of more staff. Hon. Gentlemen vied with each other in anxiety about that. One of my hon. Friends who was then the Secretary for Overseas Trade said proudly that the staff had risen from about 300 to about 500, and was warmly applauded on this side of the House for that. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who are, as I understand it, normally in favour of a reduction of Civil Service staffs said, "Oh, but this is different. This is a commercial concern."
Why should hon. Members opposite think like that? Perhaps it is because they have particular experience in the commercial field that they appreciate the value of having those public servants in this Department, and it is because they have not had experience of the employment exchanges, or of other Depart-


ments, that they think they can easily dispense with other public servants. I think that our experience with regard to the public servants employed by this Department could well be a guide to the sort of economies we attempt to make elsewhere.
Now I turn to the reasons why we have to raise these totals. I think one can put them under four heads. The first is that exports have risen in cost. There may well be the same amount of exports, but if they have risen in cost, of course we shall need a bigger ceiling to cover them. Second, more people may know of the scheme. We may be getting more people making use of it. Third—and this is a point that was not dealt with, or put very clearly, by the President of the Board of Trade—more people may be afraid of risk. There may be a situation in which more people require cover. Then there may be a greater volume of exports. Quite irrespective of price there may be a greater bulk of exports going abroad. Before the House really can come to a decision on these things, it is important that we should have some indication of the reasons for this particular increase.
It is curious to think that only two years ago the present Minister of Works was moving an Amendment to reduce the amount. This is a great reversal, and we ought to know in more detail on what grounds the increase is based. It is important to know in regard to these four factors how they affect the calculations on which the present figure is based: whether exports are rising in cost or volume, or both, and whether it is anticipated that there will be a further rise in volume or only in cost. When the Secretary for Overseas Trade was speaking, he said:
It is partly due to a rise in prices and partly to the success of our export drive, or perhaps I should more properly describe it as a combination of both.
That gave the impression that there was not only an increase in prices but in volume as well, and that they anticipated that both these factors would continue. Yet a few sentences further on he says:
Average export prices during the year were nearly 20 per cent, above the 1950 average."—

and later on
The volume of United Kingdom exports in 1951 was some 3 per cent. greater than in 1950, and given the Government's determination to increase the resources devoted to production for export, there is no reason to suppose that there will be a reduction in export volume.
Within a paragraph that really is a contradiction. The first suggestion was that we should give this sum because there was going to be an increase not only in prices but in volume as well. If the increase is only in prices, the percentage of risk increases far higher than if the increase is in volume, because the risk is spread over the same number of goods.
The Secretary for Overseas Trade went on to say:
In the engineering field all the Government's policies are now directed to increasing the proportion of total output devoted to the export trade, and therefore we must expect that capital goods and machinery will form an even larger proportion of the total export earnings than in 1951, and this will inevitably have a substantial influence on the Export Credits Guarantee Department's medium-term operation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February. 1952; Vol. 496, c. 324–5.]
That is a third and quite different explanation. It is not that volume is going to rise but that turnover is going to be slower, because for engineering goods you give a much longer term of credit. I did discuss previously whether the term of cover is long enough. One does not know on these figures whether there is any intention of increasing the length of period of cover; but that is another reason for the increase.
Is the calculation that more money is required not because there will be a greater volume than was suggested earlier and not so much because of a price rise —the price rise spoken of is 20 per cent. and increased cover is in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent.—but for coveringing more medium-term credits instead of short-term credits? If it is, that must be based on the calculation that a great many more engineering exports requiring medium-term credits will be available for export than was previously the case.
Is that really to be so? It is true that the easiest form of export is the export of capital goods whose absorption into the home market can be controlled by comparatively simple physical controls. But if you abandon an effective system of physical controls, it is necessary to have quite a different kind of export credit


policy. With an efficient system of physical controls at home, the maker of a generating plant who cannot sell at home has to export it or not use it. Therefore, he is much more likely to be prepared to meet the risk of financing the whole thing himself.
If one reads the pamphlet to which the Secretary for Overseas Trade wrote a preface, one sees that the Department are really thinking of consumer goods. The whole of the dollar drive arrangements are based on the idea that one can secure in the dollar areas a sale of consumer goods. The passage in "Sell More—Risk Less" states:
For many products, branded articles and goods which can well be sold in the highly competitive field, it is necessary to make a scientific market survey to ensure the products will be acceptable to potential customers in quality, price, and design.
Here is an attempt to go forward on a consumer goods basis.
In 1949 my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade, said that the Export Credits Guarantee Department had ceased to be a passive body. It used its machinery to steer trade, rightly, into particular quarters and away from others. It withheld credits from certain countries and areas where they thought the risk was high and where they thought it would not be to the national advantage to trade, and they gave facilities in other areas where they thought trade should be developed.
We ought to look and see what markets we should develop. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is going to tell us anything about the areas of insolvency. From what countries have come the principal claims upon the Department? From what individual countries have we had the most insolvencies? I do not know anything about his Department, but I suggest two countries. One is Australia, the other is Egypt. I suggest those countries because they are countries where the economy is upset by the re-armament drive. We cannot discuss that here, but when we are discussing to which countries we should give our export credits, it is right to consider the economic pressures to which they are subject.
The position in Australia is that suddenly, because everyone bought wool, there were all sorts of people with immense quantities of money to spend

and it looked as if there was a wonderful market. But, of course, it collapsed and disappeared. If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury looks in the "Times" of last week, he will see that the hosiery manufacturers of Australia were complaining about the dumping of nylons on Australia. I think the figure was 1,700,000 pairs, which seems to be a fair share even for Australia. There was talk that these were all going to be charged with special duties because of dumping.
It is not much use to have an export credit guarantee basis for putting goods into countries under those circumstances. In this debate, instead of trying to score political points as the President of the Board of Trade tried to do on the last occasion, we should be much better occupied in going into problems of this kind seriously. I think everyone deplores. at a time when it is said on every side that we are in a desperate position and must export more and work harder, the fact that the Patronage Secretary ensures that this debate should be taken at an hour when no hon. Member is sufficiently fresh to deal with it properly. For instance, the hon. Member for Bury and Redclyffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) is not present. I know he is not in good health, but up to now he has been a persistent speaker on this Bill and his advice we certainly ought to have.
It is wrong to take a Measure of this kind at this time, when, so far as the supporters of the hon. Gentleman are concerned, those who have always spoken on this Bill cannot be here for one reason or another. These are technical questions which affect the welfare of this country, and upon the decision which the Government and the House makes may well depend how our export drive will go. It is difficult to consider and discuss them at this time of the morning.
What are the views of the Financial Secretary as to which are the reliable consumer goods markets? I cannot conceive, with the news we are getting from France at the moment, that that country provides one. We are this morning under the shadow of a possible economic collapse in France, in a position when it is foolish not to say openly that the franc is not in a particularly strong position. Are we to run a great consumer goods campaign to Western Europe in those circumstances? These are serious


political questions to which hon. Gentlemen will have to address themselves sooner or later or else get out of office.
Of course, there are other great and possible consumer markets. Let me give the hon. Gentlemen two examples—China and Africa. What is the policy of the Department in regard to those two areas? When the President of the Board of Trade was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) what was the breakdown among Asiatic countries for the export credit guarantees, he could not give an answer. A week has elapsed and perhaps this morning we shall be able to have the answer to that rather important question.
What sort of sales organisations exist at the moment in either of those two countries? In Africa, there is a series of monopolies. The United Africa Corporation and companies of that sort control practically the whole sale of consumer goods to a greater part of Africa. How does the Department work in relation to them? Are they helping people who do not want to sell through the United Africa Corporation or do they feel that it is a corporation on the same lines as the brewers whom we discussed earlier?
As far as China is concerned, it is a part of the world with which we have had very long trade associations. The history of these firms goes right back into the 17th century and it would be a great pity if we abandoned all these markets. We shall abandon them if right hon. Gentlemen opposite apply the sort of policy of steering goods away from them. What is their policy with regard to China?
The problem in this country is not engineering goods. If one is having a re-armament drive, for good or for ill, one has a full occupation of the engineering industry. What we have not got at the moment is full employment in the textile industry. It really is fantastic, when we come to have a debate on export trade, that we have heard not one word from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, as to what the Government are going to do in regard to what is potentially the greatest textile market in the world.
The third point is that perhaps there are more people who know of this service and are using it. That is a thing on which we should like to have a little more information from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when he replies. The President of the Board of Trade gave some figures which, I thought, were somewhat contradictory, and unfortunately I did not have the records with me to give him the other figures; but I will give them now. Replying to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham, the President of the Board of Trade said:
The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) asked me a number of questions. He asked me whether it was possible to describe or divide the various activities of these export guarantees between the Commonwealth, the United States, and the Iron Curtain countries. What I can say is that so far as the Commonwealth are concerned, excluding Canada, we cover through the activities of that body 8 per cent. of the total trade. In the case of the United States and Canada, which I put together as both being dollar countries, we cover 9 per cent., and in the case of the Iron Curtain countries we cover 10 per cent.
He went on—and this is the very curious figure—
But I think the most illuminating fact is that since 1945, when we covered 5 per cent. of the total United Kingdom exports, the figure has increased to 13 per cent., which gives a clear indication of the extent to which traders are increasingly using the facilities available to them through this organisation."—[OFFICAL REPORT. 20th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 356.]
These are not the figures given by the then Minister of Works when he was speaking in the debate in 1949. If both sets of figures marry together, there has been a remarkable decline in the percentage of goods covered. Let me give the figures given by the Minister of Works in that debate. He said that from 1945 to 1946 we covered 12·8 per cent. of our exports; in 1946–47 we covered 13·5 per cent. and from 1947 to 1949 we covered 14·3 per cent. Were the figures given by him wrong? If so, it would not be the first time. Or were they right and does it mean that the percentage covered has now declined?
Again, I apologise to the House for discussing these things at this hour when it is difficult for us to keep the figures in our minds, but it is no fault of ours on this side that we are obliged to


do it in this way. We on this side are determined to give the exports of this country the attention they deserve whatever the actions of the Patronage Secretary and we shall discuss the matter fully and frankly. The President of the Board of Trade gave us a general answer. On Wednesday of last week, he said:
There are many ways in which one can divide up these figures.…
This was after my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham had asked for the information and had said:
I did not ask about the Iron Curtain countries. I asked especially about Asia and Europe as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1952; Vol. 496. c. 356.]
Those would be very valuable figures, and I hope we shall receive them.
The Secretary for Overseas Trade said earlier of the extra £250 million:
It is possible that the extra £250 million now in question may not be required in the immediate future, but it is dangerous to assume this in view of current high prices and an increasing number of applications at this particularly difficult time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 20th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 323.]
I do not know whether the President gave us the increasing number of applications but, if the figures that were given by the Minister of Works were correct, what he is saying is that, though the percentage of total cover is falling, nevertheless there are more applicants. Is that the position or is it that there are greater risks? That is the next point. Are people who previously did not do so now asking for cover because they feel the world is becoming so insecure, or is it that as a result of market research and promotion more small men are brought in?
The Department are much to be congratulated upon their efforts at market research. The President of the Board of Trade said that they have a file of no fewer than 120,000 buyers and every month 2,000 more potential buyers are examined by the Department. That is a very valuable service. If one reads the pamphlet, "Sell More, Risk Less" one sees that it is not only in this sort of work that there is a very considerable service rendered to the country by the Department. They do a tremendous amount of work. If I may refer once again to another of these points to illustrate the work of the Department and to serve as a text for the second part of

what I have to say to the House, on page 6 the Department say, speaking of their joint venture policy:
The joint venture is based on that idea of partnership which has been used in commerce since Elizabethan merchants shared the hazards of overseas trade projects.
Then they go on to describe how, starting out on merely the principle of credit insurance, they went on until the Department now deal with all sorts of unpredictable risks such as changing fashions, stocks left on hand, variations in exchange rates, fluctuations in costs, market surveys, appointments of agents, advice on stocks, and things of that sort.
Surely, this is a particular sort of credit which should be extended particularly in the Clause 2 type of arrangements. Clause 2 deals with special arrangements of various sorts, and, if I may say so to the Secretary for Overseas Trade, perhaps in his haste to get the Measure through he was a little vague. He said that the second group consists of guarantees given with the consent of the Treasury for various transactions.
When he came to mention them, he said they covered a wide number of projects such as certain aspects of the dollar drive, herrings to Poland, and many other projects. He then went on to talk about market research in North America and about £10 million worth of 'buses which were being sent to Cuba, which was, he said, a matter which my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham would well remember. Of course, it is not much use having private exchanges of that sort. What is necessary is to explain in detail the transaction to the House. and not merely remind one hon. Gentleman of some particular matter.
Let me come, for example, to this question of herrings in Eastern Europe. It is an important point, and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby), who is generally associated with matters of this sort, was not warned by the Patronage Secretary that this was a likely subject of discussion so that we could have had him here. It is one of the disadvantages of having debates at this hour of the morning that a thing which closely affects a Member's constituency is discussed in his absence, and he is excluded from the discussion.
So far as I know—and one of the two Ministers on the Front Bench opposite


will correct me if I am wrong—we export to Russia at the moment about 10,000 barrels of herrings a year.

Sir William Darling: "Butts" are more appropriate.

Mr. Bing: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt, I will pause for a moment and give way to him.
I think I am right in saying that the export of herrings to Russia is round about 10,000 barrels a year at the moment, and that before the war the figure was a million barrels. This seems to me to be the sort of field in which this type of special guarantee could do good, but, of course, it is not only a question of just financing the shipment but of investigating the general market conditions in order to discover why, where a million barrels went before the war, only 10,000 barrels go now.
There are many possible reasons. One may be the interruption for the moment of the trade from Russia in salmon. For years there has been a traditional exchange of herrings for salmon. I feel that we have had the best of the bargain for a long period, but that is a matter of taste, and I am not going to argue it at the moment. These are both nonessential imports in a sense, and if we cut off one we are faced with the problem that we may have the other cut off as well.
It is for that reason that I want to mention, in view of the sort of market research work the Department have done, the question of the Economic Conference which is likely to be held on 2nd or 3rd April in Moscow. This matter was the subject of a question by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) to the Foreign Secretary, and it has also been the subject of comment by the T.U.C., so I do not think either one of us should try to make a party point about our attitude to it. If we have been right, we have both been right: if we have been wrong, we have both been wrong. This is a matter which could well be looked at again from the point of view of overseas trade.
It may be said that a conference of this sort will achieve nothing, and that everybody will be used for some kind of purpose. That is not the attitude which

the Department takes towards other projects. They pride themselves on whatever project comes forward; they will investigate it on its merits. I suggest that the Department might look at the conference on its merits, and see whether it is not a fit body to which to send an observer. I have got hold of a copy of the agenda; I will not worry the House by reading it all, but this is the sort of thing they will be considering—balance of payments difficulties and ways of solving them: possibility of extending trade to countries with planned economies and to countries with private enterprise. These problems are being studied in relation to the dollar areas.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said, we have an important problem in relation to the Eastern bloc countries. They are getting dangerous sterling balances built up here, dangerous because we cannot give exports in requital. This market might well be studied. Here is a conference at which not only the Soviet Government are to be represented, but also Japanese business men, Chinese, South Americans, and, I understand, the trade and finance Ministers of a number of Middle Eastern countries.
If all these persons are getting together to discuss trade, it does seem to me to be deplorable that we should not have even an observer there, and I hope the Department will think it over. If they do not think it worth sending an observer they might consider having a similar kind of conference here. The Foreign Secretary has said time and time again that it is by actions such as this, and by using occasions of this kind, that we can overcome unfortunate difficulties. But do let us look at the matter again.
I want now to turn to a point on which we have been lectured at length by the hon. Member for Bury and Radclyffe. That hon. Gentleman has on many occasions explained in detail the question of offshore trade. He believed that he had made it clear, but when the subject came around again he felt he had to explain it again on the theory that none of us had understood him. He has made, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) would say, a "valuable contribution," and I cannot add anything to what he has said on that point—[HON. MEMBERS:


"Hear, hear."]—I am sorry hon. Members should say that because I am trying to make a serious speech on this issue, but if we were having this debate at a reasonable time I should not have to be making a speech for myself and for other hon. Gentlemen who are absent.
I want to say only this about offshore trade. Obviously, as the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe has said, this country is traditionally skilled in managing the trade of other countries and it is just as important a subject and is recognised by the Department as being just as important a job, as any other they have to do. But it is not only managing the trade of the most sophisticated countries—it is managing the trade of a great many other countries just coming forward to nationhood.
These are the sort of people we ought to help. They need the helping hand, not the traders who are established and maintain themselves in clubs and support the class and the colour bar, but of the sort of service we render to the United States. If they regarded all countries in the same way as they regard the United States, I think there would be a future for the development of offshore trade among all these countries, particularly those in the Far East who are coming into nationhood.
I hope I have not wearied you, Sir—perhaps I have wearied hon. Members. My only excuse for doing so is that, in my submission, this is the most important single problem before this country today. It is the one problem which if we fail to solve it, our economy will be completely and utterly disrupted. No other country in the world lives to the same extent on its exports, and there is no one matter more important in regard to our exports than this excellent machinery which has been set up and developed by my right hon. Friends. I might mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham who have built up this Department from comparatively small beginnings after the war to its present position. We have got to continue their policy, and it is my submission that if we do not do so, the whole of this delicate machinery on which our imports and exports rest may well be brought to a stop.
I hope we may discuss his matter again at a time when hon. Members are less fatigued, more able to take in an argument, and less to be boring or bored.

4.2 a.m.

Miss Irene Ward: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his courtesy in warning me that he was going to address the few remarks he did to me concerning my intervention the other day at Question time. May I also say at once, because I should not like to be unfair in this matter, that immediately after Question time the Patronage Secretary told me that there was no such agreement.
I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is not quite aware of the full weight of the circumstances of what occurred the other night. He left the Chamber followed by a considerable body of his supporters who congratulated him very warmly on his bravery in talking out the Bill on that occasion. I was extremely interested to hear his supporters saying how courageous and brave he had been and commiserating with him on what might be the effect on his own Whips that following morning. I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. and learned Gentleman, because I can well remember that often over a long period in the House I have found myself in conflict with my own Whips when I wanted to make a speech and they would have preferred me to resume my seat.
It was the commiseration of hon. Members opposite, with the hon. and learned Gentleman, suggesting what might face him from his right hon. Friends, which led me to believe that his Front Bench had expected him to sit down at the famous hour of 10 o'clock and allow this very important Bill to have a Second Reading. That was why I made the point in the way I did. Now, having listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I can understand that he required more time in which to make his speech and to get everything he had to say—to which the whole House listened with interest—in HANSARD.
It is curious that I always seem to be in difficulties over the Export Guarantees Bill. I remember that in the 30's, when I was anxious to get export credits extended to ship-building—a matter of great interest to the North of England and to my constituency, in particular—I


waited for three years before an opportunity arose on which I could address the House. The business of the House having been accelerated for some reason or another, the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade at that time announced that it had been decided to extend export credits to ship-building —and I was not in my place to congratulate my Minister. I warmly congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on being a better Parliamentarian on export credit guarantees than I was, and I am glad to have had this opportunity of hearing his speech.

Mr. Bing: If the House will permit me to intervene, I must say that any misunderstanding which arose is amply met by my having had the opportunity of addressing the House when the hon. Lady was present.

4.8 a.m.

Mr. H. Rhodes: I must thank the array of Ministers from the Board of Trade and the Treasury who have come to listen to the debate. It is unfortunate that it could not have taken place at an earlier hour, because this is an important subject.
If I were the Secretary for Overseas Trade or the President of the Board of Trade at the moment I should have written on the wall opposite, "Any consumer goods that we lose from our exports this year we lose for all time." This is not just a crisis of consumer goods in this country. It is a crisis of consumer goods throughout Europe. It is the old problem of the remnants of the 19th century economy as we have known it. That is why during this year and in the years which immediately follow we shall have to apply ourselves to this problem of survival in the consumer goods trades with more sincerity and more energy than we have ever applied to the problem.
I do not intend to speak at great length, but I am going to put to the President of the Board of Trade and to the Secretary for Overseas Trade five points. Three of them have to do with the mechanics of premiums, and the remaining two with policy. It may quite easily be that before this Bill passes the Committee stage Amendments may have to be made to alter the functions of the Department on account of the urgency

of the situation in the textile trades. I therefore agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) that it is most lamentable that we have to discuss this subject in the middle of the night.
My first point has to do with the Clause which has been slipped into contracts in late months whereby the Department can change the rate of premium at any time between the date of contract and dispatch. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury will appreciate that I am engaged in the industry which is the largest single dollar earning industry in this country—the wool trade—and that this handicap is, in my opinion, discouraging business.
What is the result of it in a buyers' market—or, as I heard one of the principal figures in the Lancashire cotton industry say, on Sunday, a "no buyers' market"? Anybody getting business has to quote very keenly, cut prices, or even accept a slight loss to get any business at all. Everybody connected with the textile industries knows what the situation is today.
How can a manufacturer who has taken business at a cut price meet the increased demands that a change in the rate of premium will make? If the market is a buyers' one—if it is a buyers' market or a "no buyers' market"—the circumstances with regard to risk will have deteriorated since the time of the contract. So I would ask the Financial Secretary to give the House some information on that particular point. If the Department can be asked to withdraw that proviso it would give great satisfaction to my own particular industry.
That brings me to my second point. I put it in the form of a question. If a fixed premium can be quoted, will the Department quote a rate on the basis of the risk at the time when the order is taken? Otherwise, if a higher estimate of the premium is made at the beginning the charge on the insurer will be higher than he can stand. If the Financial Secretary does not understand that I will explain more fully: will the rate quoted by the Department be at the rate for the risk at the time that the contract is entered into, and not an estimate of a deterioration of the risk at a later date.
My next point is this: does the Department rigidly adhere to a rule that import


licences must be in the hands of the exporter before the Department will cover the exporter? If that is the case there is going to be a good bit of business lost. We must expect our manufacturers to anticipate the conditions and the time in which they can make delivery. Do not forget that in a buyers' market the man who can give short deliveries is the man who is going to get the order, and if a man has a reasonable chance of getting an order by anticipating it, getting his materials ready and so forth, he is quite entitled to do it. I ask the Financial Secretary if he will find out if such a rule applies, and, if so, to what industries.
My fourth point is one of policy, and relates to the statement of the Secretary for Overseas Trade about the Department's relations with the Treasury. He said:
Since April, 1930, until the present time it has made a contribution to the Exchequer of no less than £7,387,568. This in the case of a normal insurance company would be regarded as part of its reserves against future contingencies.
Why is this Department deprived of the reserves that a normal commercial company would need to meet the very contingencies that the Department will be called on to meet during the next year or two? It ought to be the other way about. He goes on:
The House may be interested to know that since 1930 the gross payments on claims have amounted to £9,400,000. Of that £5,800,000 has actually been recovered, leaving £3,600,000 outstanding. A part of this has been written off as irrecoverable, but it is quite possible that at least a part of that sum of £3,600,000 will be recovered and will go to swell the notional reserve in the Treasury."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1952; Vol. 496. c. 326.]
Why? I am suggesting to my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends that we should consider this so that perhaps an Amendment may be tabled on the Committee stage to deal with the point. The Treasury gets the profits and the taxpayer pays the losses. If there is a loss during a year's insuring the Board of Trade asks the House for more money. It is ridiculous that the Treasury should he allowed to get away with it.
My next point is also on policy. This Department sprang out of the original Overseas Trade Credits and Insurance Act, 1920. The circumstances were somewhat similar then: there was a slump in the textile industries; there was a Tory

Government in and they had arranged with Mr. Montagu Norman of the Bank of England for a little deflation to take place and also the restriction of credit.
I want not to be controversial, but the restriction of credit, coming on the heels of a buyers' strike, has precipitated the textile industries and other consumer goods industries, into the worst situation that has been known this century. So little has been done that the Lancashire and Yorkshire manufacturers, in spite of the fact that the Government has been in power only four months, has already lost confidence, not only in the Government but in their ability to sell.
I say that in no hard spirit. I wish hon. Gentlemen could get out of this difficulty, but their inaction, lack of direction, and lack of a definite policy after the announcement of the restriction of credit in November has done more damage to the textile industries of the North than the Government will, in all probability, ever be able to recover. It is serious.
Time was, only a few months ago, when the salesmen coming down from Manchester would be travelling first-class, the barons and the kings of industry. See them walking round the East End with their papier maché cases underneath their arms trying to sell their stock today. It is due to lack of confidence—in what? Lack of confidence in ability to sell and in the Government which is directing affairs. The Tory Party, before they were elected, promised to reduce all costs. The hoardings were covered with it in my constituency. It did not pass unnoticed by the buyers overseas that we were going to reduce our costs, and that helped to restrict purchases.

Mr. Richard Fort: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that foreign buyers, as well as home buyers, had been strongly advised not to buy by one of the most eminent Members of his own party only a few weeks before the General Election? Let us get the record straight.

Mr. F. A. Burden: If I may follow up that point, the hon. Gentleman opposite knows as well as the rest of the House that the sellers' market in this country was brought to a precipitate end by the rather foolish statements of


one of his right hon. Friends. He knows, in fact, that there was considerable rising unemployment in the textile industry and in the clothing industry before this Government ever came in, and that this Government is suffering from the hangover of the incompetence of its predecessor.

Mr Rhodes: In answer to both of those interjections, I admit at once that I do not think the remarks made by the right hon. Member referred to were of the wisest, but they were only in line with a lot of remarks that had been made by hon. Members opposite in previous months. I would not disagree, either, that there was an element of a buyers' strike even before the remarks were made.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The high cost of the wool clip in Australia.

Mr. Rhodes: I am coming to that in a minute. There is no question, however, that the confidence which the textile trade had has disappeared, and there is a sense of desperation among people who are now engaged in that industry. Nobody can deny that. I am suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman that he now makes a reversal of policy with regard to the Department. Because, in the first instance, the Department was able to make advances in cash. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman and the Financial Secretary, or whoever makes this decision, to think about this seriously before we come to the Committee stage.
I do not think myself that we shall go many months before it is necessary to give financial assistance to likely exporters. I know, in the second class of the guarantees, that is given, perhaps, to firms manufacturing capital goods for local authorities in many part of the world. They may be more risky than the shorter term guarantees which are given in the first part. But I think it will be necessary before the end of the year to be in a position to give exporters cash assistance in the form of advances. That is the sum total of what I have to say on this particular phase of this Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) mentioned the high cost of the wool clip. I will make this observation in that connection. I believe that the mills of

Yorkshire and of Lancashire will not throb again, working full-time, until the raw materials coming out of the sterling area are considerably lower in price than they are today. Somebody has to make up their minds how they are going to handle these affairs because it is no use looking to high price Australian wool for a direct sale to America today because that wool is not going through the Yorkshire mills.
When we are thinking in terms of dollar deficits, for goodness' sake let us all apply ourselves to the study of the problem of how it is going to affect the livelihood of people in our textile mills in Lancashire, Yorkshire, the West of England, and Scotland. If we do that, and apply ourselves sincerely to it, I think, between us, we can go a long way towards a solution.

4.34 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The speech of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), who speaks with very direct personal authority on this subject which hon. Members on both sides of the House respect, fell into three parts. There was a short passage directed to the question of the hour at which this debate is taking place. I need only remind the House of two facts. In the first place, this debate originally began at 7.45 on the evening of 20th February and two-and-one-quarter hours' discussion followed. It has been continued for over an hour now. I am bound to remind the hon. Gentleman that on the 1949 Bill, which was a somewhat longer, and which consolidated some previous Bills, the debate took some two hours. So I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has any reason for complaint on that score.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: We arranged on that occasion to start the debate early in the afternoon in anticipation that it might go on for a long time. In this case no provision was made and we were confined to 2½ hours only. Therefore I think we are entitled to the extra time now.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On that occasion more time was actually allowed than, in fact, proved necessary for the long and more complicated Bill in 1949.
The second part of the speech of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was directed in equal proportions to somewhat polemical comments of a political and controversial nature and to other comments closely integrated with them on the general situation of the textile industry. I agree with him that problems of great complexity and importance arise in general in connection with that industry, but I must say with respect that the connection between those broad and important problems and this Bill is a somewhat tenuous one; and it is really a very unsatisfactory method of dealing with matters of such importance to do so on the Second Reading of a Bill of such comparatively limited scope as this. I have no doubt at all that the hon. Member, with his Parliamentary ingenuity and skill, will find ample opportunity to discuss these grave matters on a more important occasion.

Mr. Rhodes: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not attach the importance to the matter that we on this side of the House attach to it. I am sorry he said that, because that is in itself another statement which will not give any confidence to the people who are looking to this Bill for some help.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the hon. Member genuinely failed to understand me. It is precisely because of the importance of this matter that it really appears to me inappropriate that it should be tacked on as a subsidiary issue in the discussion of a Bill limited to the provision of additional sums under the Export Credits Guarantee scheme. The hon. Member, with his experience, knows very well that there are a variety of problems in connection with this great industry which have nothing whatever to do with the Export Credits Guarantee scheme and it is because of the importance—which, so far from understating I have been emphasising—of those problems it is not really a suitable or effective way to deal with them by tacking them on as an indirect consequence of a Bill the theme of which—

Mr. Glenvil Hall: On a point of order. Is not the whole tenor of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, Mr. Speaker, a grave reflection upon your conduct of the Chair? The implication that what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-

under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) has been saying has nothing whatever to do with this Bill and has been tacked on in some way to this Bill, is not that a reflection upon your conduct of the debate?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: May I respectfully say that there was nothing said to suggest that anything said in this debate was out of order. I suggest that many things which are manifestly in order on Second Reading of a Bill are inappropriate and unsuitable, from the practical point of dealing with them, to be dealt with on Second Reading. The right hon. Member knows that as well as I do.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order. Might I draw your attention to the fact that the Financial Secretary has suggested that some of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) would have been better made on some other occasion?
During the earlier part of this debate, the other day, a whole series of questions were put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), and the answer of the President of the Board of Trade was to suggest that his remarks were out of order, and that therefore he need not reply to them. Indeed, the whole of the earlier part of this debate was frustrated because of the refusal of the President of the Board of Trade to abide by the decision of the Chair. Is not the Financial Secretary now attempting to follow the example of the President of the Board of Trade in seeking to refuse to answer questions raised from this side by sheltering behind the Chair?

Mr. Eric Fletcher: May I ask you to consider, Mr. Speaker, that what the Financial Secretary said more than once was that the remarks addressed by my hon. Friend were totally inappropriate and unfortunate in connection with such an important Measure as this. Did not his remarks give the definite implication that this resumed debate tonight was something which ought not to have been allowed, and is not that, Mr. Speaker, a grave reflection on your conduct in the Chair?

Mr. Speaker: In answer to the various points raised, some of which are points of order and some points of debate, I


would only say that so far as I recollect —and I have been in the Chair all the time that this debate has gone on, both today and the previous day—nothing has been said which I consider sufficiently out of order to interrupt or reject. What I understood the Financial Secretary to say was not that anything had been allowed which was out of order, but that it might have been inappropriate to attach a certain argument to this Bill, and so on. That is a matter for debate. So far as I know, nothing which has been said is out of order, and it is for hon. Members of the House to argue it out among themselves.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry if I upset the hon. Gentleman opposite. That was not my intention. What I was trying to do was to tell him that we appreciate as well as he does the grave importance of this matter, but equally that this is not a convenient occasion on which to deal with it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am not going to weary the House with what might be described as tedious repetition, but it is in the recollection of the House that I did suggest that these are matters which it is not convenient to debate on a Bill of this sort, which is to extend the financial limits under the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme.
I will now deal, if I may, with the specific points put by the hon. Gentleman which very clearly, as he himself knows, relate to this scheme. He raised really four points because the fifth one was a somewhat polemical matter to which I have already made reference. The first was—

Mr. Rhodes: rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, I do not propose to give way; I am going to deal with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
The first one was the handicap which he said was imposed upon the whole trade by the proviso to which he referred. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that discussions are at present taking place on that question, and we hope and believe that they are well on the way to a satisfactory solution. As regards the second point—the question of rates and changes in rates of premiums—I can tell him that this question is also being discussed with the policy holders and with the organisations

representing traders and exporters, and that the Department concerned is at present working on the problem of providing fixed premiums on contracts and hopes to introduce a new system in the near future.
The third matter I cannot deal with at such length. That is under consideration, and I cannot say more about its merits now. The fourth and final detailed point he raised was the reference to the fact that the profits of this insurance scheme are, as he rightly said, paid into the Exchequer, and he suggested that this ought not to be so, and that they should be preserved separately as a reserve for the Department. I think I have apprehended his argument correctly.
That is an arguable proposition, but it is completely opposed to the method adopted in the operation of this scheme by varied Governments. I am not going to say that all the arguments are on one side, but I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that this is a scheme operated by a Government Department, and there is a good deal that can undoubtedly be said for providing that Parliament shall in such cases have that strict control which flows from the fact that if further moneys are needed the Department must come to Parliament and ask for them.
Whatever may be the merits or demerits of this, it does preserve the control of the House to a far greater degree than would be the case if they were treated as free reserves at the untrammelled control of a Department. I think that this House and the Public Accounts Committee might look with some doubt at a proposal which deprived the House of the effective control it has over the operation of these funds and this scheme. I would not close my mind to the hon. Gentleman's argument, but he will appreciate there are wide and serious considerations on the other side.

Mr. Rhodes: The hon. Gentleman has missed my most important point. That is the last one. There were five, and the fifth was the question of the reversal to the original plan under which guarantees were set out. Will he answer the question about cash advances and the matter of discussions with trade associations, development councils and export groups?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That would mean a return to the 1920 scheme. That has


not been under consideration. As far as I know no suggestions that that would be more desirable have been made until they were made this morning by the hon. Gentleman. The fact that he had made them will result in that aspect of the matter being looked at, but I do not want to go into any other commitment than that.
The case for this Bill is that it is necessary to deal with two matters arising out of the 1949 Act because of a combination of circumstances. One is the increase in prices to which the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) referred. Another is one which has not been mentioned, and it is that in this troubled world a larger proportion of traders seek the protection of the scheme.

Mr. Bing: I did mention the matter at some length. Can the hon. Gentleman say what percentage of our total exports are covered by the scheme?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understand that the figure is 13 per cent. which, the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate, shows a rise over the figures of previous years. This, of course, is one of the factors which make it necessary to increase the limit provided in the scheme. The hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was wholly comprehensible so far as all the other issues that arise are concerned. I will give way once more, but I must get on.

Mr. Bing: Unless the hon. Gentleman gives way how can he be reminded of the points he did not hear? Otherwise, we shall not get an answer. The Minister of Works, in the previous debate, in 1949, gave various figures going up to 14.3 per cent. for the year 1947–48. Does the hon. Gentleman say that 13 per cent. is an increase over 14.3 per cent. or does he say that the figures given by the Minister of Works were wrong?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The figure of 13 per cent. is not an increase over the figure of 14.3 per cent. but an increase over the general average of the last few years. The tendency is upwards.
Before I give way again I have something else to say. It really is not good enough to say that I should extend the usual courtesies. It ill becomes the hon. and learned Gentleman—who was prepared to deny courtesy to the President

of the Board of Trade—not to give me an opportunity to reply to his points.
The hon. and learned Gentleman, having adopted that attitude, is not in a position to insist on courtesy being given by me which he goes out of his way to deny to my right hon. Friend. If he felt it right to go in detail into the operation of this scheme he must have known when he gave that indication he could not deny himself and the House the opportunity of obtaining from the senior Minister responsible for this scheme the authoritative answers my right hon. Friend could have given.

Mr. Bing: rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. and learned Gentleman, having twice received the courtesy he denied to others, is not entitled to receive any more.

Mr. Leslie Hale: On a point of order. Can we really be told whether it is in order for the Minister to go on like this on two separate occasions, after only two speeches from this side of the House on a Bill which is, after all, of the greatest international importance? Is there no procedure for full debate and the permitting of the normal interchange of speakers?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has made his point, but it is not a point of order.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That brings me to my next point and, I am glad to say, in logical order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has said this is a debate on export trade. It is not. With great respect to him that is not the case. This is a debate to give a Second Reading to a Bill designed simply to increase the limits under the exports guarantee scheme. It is not basically a debate on exports, and I do think the hon. and learned Gentleman was under a misapprehension when he made that point.
That is not the only misapprehension. I want to deal with one or two more. It was suggested, for example, by the hon. and learned Gentleman and by one or two of his hon. Friends, that this scheme was a major and discriminatory weapon of economic policy. Indeed, the hon. and learned Gentleman based on that belief a series of arguments about the directions in which he thought trade should be guided by the use of this


weapon. That enables me to explain a little more to the hon. and learned Gentleman how the scheme has operated under a variety of Governments and how it continues to operate.
In the first place, so far as Clause 1 guarantees are concerned, the policy has been to pay great attention to preserving the solvency of the scheme. Consequently, the credit-worthiness of each application has been very carefully scrutinised and it has been the practice to use the width and spread of the scheme to permit the acceptance of risks which go rather beyond what the ordinary facilities cover, but which, none the less, are considered, as far as Clause 1 is concerned, with a view to preserving the solvency of the scheme and which bear very much in mind the credit worthiness of the applicant. Each case is considered on its merits. As right hon. Gentlemen opposite know, the Department are assisted by an extremely distinguished and representative advisory committee, who help to consider these aspects of the matter.
Such a scheme is clearly not a scheme which is suitable or appropriate to the very special economic direction of exports to which one or two hon. Gentlemen referred. It is much more a device, with one qualification which I shall come to in a moment, of general support for British exports than a discriminatory economic weapon. That is as far as Clause 1 is concerned.
Clause 2 deals with the special guarantees where considerations of national interest, and perhaps particularly of political national interest, are borne in mind, and a different procedure, without the advisory committee, is consequently followed. That is the practice which has been followed with different Governments and which has been followed consistently for a good number of years, with the result that right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House have gone out of their way to point out what valuable services it has rendered to the country. I ask the House to consider very carefully, in view of the tributes which have been paid to the operation of this scheme, along the lines I have described, whether it is wise to try to base upon it new functions which would in a considerable degree be quite different from

the functions which it has so successfully exercised for many years.
I want also to deal with a point which was raised by one or two hon. Members opposite—that of the general direction in which the scheme seeks to persuade or induce traders to go. As I have said, subject to one qualification there is a broad and general rather than a particular and specific approach. The one exception, of course, relates to North America where, in view of the obvious need to earn dollars, special sales promotion agencies have been created. That is the one qualification to which I referred earlier.
Hon. Members have also referred to the application of the scheme to trade with what I might generally describe as the Communist countries. In general, for the reasons which were mentioned, the same principles are applied to those countries as to others—though, of course, risks in connection with those countries have to be taken into account when each particular application is scrutinised; and, indeed, political risks in those countries have been treated as being so serious that recent guarantees have been, I am told, almost exclusively Section 2 guarantees; but there are a number of Section 1 guarantees as well running in respect of those countries.
There is one further point that is, of course, borne in mind in the giving of these guarantees. Hon. Members will be aware that with respect to certain of those countries, certain limitations on exports of certain materials have been imposed for strategic reasons. It must obviously be the case that guarantees would not be given in respect of any transaction that violated those limitations. It would be ludicrous to use the machinery of one Department of State to work contrary to the proposals put forward by another. Therefore, the existence of any such limitations is, naturally, taken into account when a particular application is put up. I may add in this connection that some 10 per cent. of the existing trade with the European Iron Curtain countries is covered by the Scheme.
Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch asked—

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I hate to interrupt, but will the hon. Gentleman tell us—I do not know whether it is possible; perhaps


he will say if it is not—what it would be interesting to some of us to know, namely, what proportion of the losses that have been mentioned have been in the countries mentioned? I was myself a member of the advisory committee over 20 years ago, and then, strangely enough, Russia, according to my recollection, paid most meticulously all the commercial debts that were due.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have not got the figures, but I can say to the right hon. Gentleman that, so far as Russia is concerned—I am not referring to the others—in general her record in the honouring of obligations has been very good. I have no precise percentage figures, nor the details, with regard to other countries, but no doubt they can be obtained at a later stage.
I was answering the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch when the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked for the percentages of the guarantees in their broad application to different parts of the world, and I have got the figures for him, which I am glad to give. For the year 1951 to 1952 the percentages were these: Asia, 9 per cent.; Europe, 44 per cent.; the Commonwealth, 23 per cent.; North America, 8 per cent.; South America, 16 per cent.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Would the hon. Gentleman make it clear exactly what are the figures he has now given? Are those percentages of the total trade between this country and those countries?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, they are the percentages of the total guaranteed export trade. I hope that is clear. I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has helped to clear that up, if I was not as clear as I should have been.

Mr. Fletcher: I am sorry to interrupt, but would the hon. Gentleman make clear what he meant when he said that the percentage of trade covered by the scheme in respect of the Iron Curtain countries was 10 per cent.? Ten per cent. of what?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Ten per cent. of the total trade with those countries—of the total export trade from this country to those countries.
I hope that I have cleared a number of further points which hon. Members desired to ask me after my right hon. Friend sat down. This Bill was given, originally, a warm welcome. It has a part in helping our export trade, and I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said about the vital importance of helping that trade at the present time. I believe that all of us agree that this is a valuable auxiliary to the stimulation and encouragement of that trade, and I hope that for that reason the House will support the Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Brigadier Mackeson]

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — EXPORT GUARANTEES [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.)

Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the amount of the liabilities which may be undertaken by the Board of Trade in respect of guarantees under sections one and two of the Export Guarantees Act, 1949, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(a) raising to seven hundred and fifty million pounds the limit of five hundred million pounds imposed by subsection (4) of section one of the said Act of 1949 in respect of guarantees under that section;
(b)raising to one hundred and fifty million pounds the limit of one hundred million pounds imposed by subsection (2) of section two of the said Act of 1949 in respect of guarantees under that Becton;
in the sums which, under section three or section four of the said Act of 1949 are to be or may be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, charged on or issued out of the


Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing or paid into the Exchequer.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

5.6 a.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I welcome the opportunity of speaking on this Resolution, because the speech I should like to deliver is mainly concerned with the machinery of the Export Credit Guarantees Fund. The Money Resolution deals with the finance of the problem, and, therefore, it is probably even more appropriate that I should be able to speak on it than on the Second Reading, although I had hoped to be able to speak on Second Reading.
I rise, like all hon. Members who spoke on the Bill, to praise the work of the Department, but I want to emphasise one aspect of which I have personal experience, the problem of the small exporter to the dollar market. Some three years ago I spent six months in the United States as a salesman, not selling on a big scale—there were no parties at the Waldorf-Astoria—but travelling round with a despatch case full of literature and samples and knocking at doors.

The Chairman: This is a very narrow Resolution, simply raising the money, and we cannot discuss anything else.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: On a point of order. In my submission the Money Resolution exactly reproduces the Bill, and anything in order on the Bill is surely in order on the Resolution. The hon. Member must be in a position to develop arguments—and perhaps to seek your guidance about adjourning this debate so that we may amend the Resolution to deal with various aspects of the Bill. As it stands it is in exactly similar form to the Bill, and the question is exactly the same as we have debated before—whether or not it is desirable to increase the cover.

The Chairman: There is a considerable difference. Hon. Members may on Second Reading say what they would like to see in the Bill. The Money Resolution is only concerned with the sum of money, and that is all that can be discussed.

Mr. Bing: That is exactly the limitation that I should have said, if any of my hon. Friends had asked me what was meant by the Money Resolution, was the

case. My hon. Friend's argument was this: he was showing why we should not devote such an amount for cover. It is the argument that some of us have already tried to put to the Committee, and it is very valuable when the President of the Board of Trade, who has been here all this time, will be able to reply to the debate. Of course, that should not influence you. But this, surely, is an argument directed to the point whether or not in one case we should increase the sum by £50 million and in the other case by £250 million. It is a considerable sum of money and we ought not to pass from it without considering why this Money Resolution is necessary and whether it is necessary to seek any amendment to it in order to facilitate the general object of the Second Reading.

The Chairman: With some of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said I agree. The point is that one can only discuss the amount of money being voted and we cannot have a Second Reading debate.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Further to that point of order. I am not trying to argue the point, but I tried to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on Second Reading, and it is necessary that we should have a full understanding of the ambit of the Ruling you have given, Sir Charles. May I draw attention to the fact that this is not a Money Resolution in the normal sense, when one deals with a single sum? It has two distinct parts. One provides for an increase in the sum to be applied to work to be undertaken by the Board of Trade under Section I of the Act of 1949, and the other provides for a quite separate increase for the specialist work under Section 2. I have been here for 15 hours as the only Lancashire Member trying to take part in the debate. We have not had from the other side one bit of information about Section 2.
I suggest respectfully that the matter the Committee is now called upon to consider is the double point whether we pass the Money Resolution for those two separate sums. I submit on that discussion we should be well within the bounds of order.

The Chairman: The fact that we have been here for 15 hours does not alter the procedure of the Committee. The debate


is very narrow, and if the hon. Gentleman was unlucky enough not to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on Second Reading, the fact is that the House agreed to come to a decision on the Second Reading. Nothing can be done now about a Second Reading speech.

Mr. Hale: I appreciate that; I was not making that point at all, and I am sorry if I failed to put it as succinctly as I might have done. I submit that Section 2 is clearly separate and that we can deal with that Section and try to find out from Ministers why they are asking for extra money in that connection.

The Chairman: I can only repeat that this Money Resolution, in my submission, is very narrow. It is raising the limit of two sums and that is all that can be discussed.

Mr. Benn: Perhaps, after those points of order, I may be allowed to continue.
I propose to limit myself very strictly to the narrowest possible interpretation of the Money Resolution. But you will agree, Sir Charles, that this Resolution, raising the limits, particularly under paragraph (b) for the special purpose in Section 2 of the Act, must inevitably include some consideration of the machinery of the Export Control Guarantee Department, which is to be called upon to spend this additional money and to raise the liability which they are allowed to dispense. Would I be right in supposing that that came within the meaning of this Resolution?

5.15 a.m.

The Chairman: No, that was decided on the Second Reading and now we can only consider the sum.

Mr. Benn: I bow completely to your Ruling, Sir Charles, that we must simply consider the sum of money which the Committee is to authorise the Export Control Guarantee fund which it has to dispense under two heads. My submission is that in considering how far this Department can be fit to give liabilities of the size required, we must consider the workings of the Department and its capacity to deal with certain problems—

The Chairman: I am sorry if I did not make myself sufficiently clear. That is a point we cannot discuss.

Mr. I. Mikardo: On a point of order. Surely if we are to discuss how much money is to be spent we need to consider what are the purposes for which it must be used.

The Chairman: That is what the House has just decided—how it will spend the money. This deals with the money and it is only the money that can be discussed

Mr. Mikardo: But how can we know how much is needed unless we know precisely what it is proposed to do? May I put it to you in this way, Sir Charles: Suppose we had just decided to allocate some money to buy coconuts. One could surely discuss why so many coconuts are to be bought in order to decide how many coconuts we want?

The Chairman: We could discuss that on the Second Reading. Now we are on the Money Resolution.

Mr. Benn: It I seem difficult, Sir Charles, it is because I am trying desperately to keep strictly within the Ruling that you have given. I must confess that when I turn my mind to the £150 million I feel that there are certain questions which I should like to ask whichever Minister is responsible for answering in this Committee. I should first like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the £150 million which we are authorising under paragraph (b) is being or will be dispensed in the best possible way. I put it to him that the whole purpose of the Export Guarantees Bill is to carry out effectively an operation of insurance. That insurance, if I understand it correctly, consists of two problems. One is the problem of assessing the risk and the other is the problem of reducing the risk—

The Chairman: Order. I think I have made myself perfectly clear. That is going back to a Second Reading speech and, if the hon. Gentleman persists, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I want to raise an entirely different point which I think, without controversy, would come within the scope of this Money Resolution. As you will observe, Sir Charles, the Money Resolution seeks for the purposes of the Bill to increase the amount of the liabilities which may be undertaken by the Board of Trade, The


weal significance of this resolution is the reference to the Board of Trade.
One of the curious things which has emerged during the debate is the relationship between the Board of Trade and the Treasury. It is not the first time we have had occasion to discuss the relationship between the Treasury and another Government Department. What we want to know, and what I think the Committee will wish to know before they pass this Money Resolution which involves the expenditure of Government money, is why it is necessary, as we heard earlier this morning, that here again there should be this unnecessary duplication of effort and expenditure as between one Government Department and another. It has now emerged, and questions were put to the right hon. Gentleman which were not answered in the Second Reading Debate—

The Chairman: It is likely they were not answered then. They certainly cannot be answered now. If they are, I shall stop it.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not press for an answer because the experience one has had in this matter teaches one that one will have to be a super-optimist to get any answer from the Government on any question relevant to this matter. But I do want to press the Committee to reject this Resolution.

Hon. Members: Vote, vote.

Mr. Mikardo: Why are hon. Members in a hurry?

Mr. Fletcher: It would be monstrous to expect the Committee to pass this Money Resolution. It requires a great deal of further examination. What has emerged? The Government is asking for this money in order that this liability may be undertaken by the Board of Trade. It is evident that the Treasury have far more to do with it than the Board of Trade. We have all this confusion and duplication between one Government Department and another. We have the Financial Secretary to the Treasury answering the debate on the Second Reading, and now we have the President of the Board of Trade dealing with the Money Resolution. The Government are in a complete muddle

about this. We do not know exactly what is going on inside the Government. I think the Committee will agree, in these circumstances, particularly at this late hour, that it would be wrong to expect this Committee to give the Government the money for which they are asking.
We have had a very long day and the Government have made a good deal of progress, and I hoped, after this matter has been ventilated, to see the Government think fit to reconsider the matter and adjourn the Committee before asking it to proceed with this Resolution.

Mr. Michael Foot: I find myself in some disagreement with some of my hon. Friends. I think possibly when they were advancing the view that there should be a lengthy discussion on this Financial Resolution, that they had missed or overlooked a part of the debate which had preceded this. In fact, there would have been certainly no need for any lengthy discussion on this Resolution if many of the points raised previously, during the Second Reading debate, had been dealt with, as.many of the points, which are covered directly by this Resolution, formed a chief part of the discussions then.

The Chairman: That is just the point. This Money Resolution covers everything to be discussed during Second Reading, but I cannot allow the discussion now.

Mr. Foot: All I was suggesting was that what was happening was that the debate on the Financial Resolution took place in the debate on the Second Reading and my hon. Friends tried to conduct the debate on the Money Resolution on Second Reading.

The Chairman: If they did that, they are certainly not going to make their Second Reading speeches now.

Mr. Foot: I wish to discuss, in particular, the detailed figures in the Financial Resolution. One of the main points about these detailed figures is whether it is required that there should be £750 million, referred to in section A, and £150 million, referred to in paragraph (b). I suggest this is a vital point on the Money Resolution because, under this Resolution, as compared with the Financial Resolution which this Committee discussed in 1949, on a similar Measure, the increase in the


figure is very much greater today. Indeed, this is a significant difference between the Financial Resolution before us now and the Financial Resolution discussed on 2nd February, 1949.
Therefore, I think it is legitimate for me on this Financial Resolution to quote what was said by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttleton), who referred in the discussion at that time directly to the question of how and at what stages the amount named in the Financial Resolution should be raised. It was one of the chief points made by the right hon. Gentleman, when he sat on this side of the Committee, that it was highly desirable not to increase these sums by big amounts but that it was very much better that the Government of the day should come back frequently if it was found necessary—even within a few months—to ask for extra money. He thought it also highly desirable that the Committee should have the opportunity to deal with the matter through a Financial Resolution of that kind rather than that the Government should ask for a much bigger sum than they required.
I suggest it is in fact quite possible that the Government are asking for a very much bigger sum than they require. In view of that explanation perhaps I may quote what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot said:
As far as export credits are concerned, I applaud the Minister's proceeding by gentle stages and givng us an opportunity of hearing how the scheme is working from time to time rather than taking something which will keep him well covered for any conceivable life of any conceivable Government." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 1689.]

The Chairman: Was that said on the Money Resolution debate?

Mr. Foot: No, Sir Charles. It was said on the 1949 Bill.

The Chairman: On what stage?

Mr. Foot: On Second Reading.

The Chairman: We are now discussing the Money Resolution. I have made the position perfectly clear.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: With great respect, Sir Charles, I submit to

you that though my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) read from a Second Reading speech, nevertheless he is doing no more than deal with the fact that here, in this Money Resolution, we are to increase a sum from £500 million to £750 million and he has submitted to you and to the Committee that that is a very large increase and that the party opposite on a previous occasion disapproved of that kind of thing. He is asking that it should not be agreed to on this Money Resolution. My submission, to you Sir Charles, with great respect, is that he is in order.

The Chairman: I do not think he is. It was on Second Reading that that was suggested and on this occasion it is not by easy stages but during this present Session of Parliament that the Government are asking for the money.

Mr. Jack Jones: On a point of order. As one who has listened for 15 hours without saying a word, even as an interjection, may I ask whether you would be good enough to define exactly what we are entitled to discuss? I think we are entitled to have guidance from your experience, Sir Charles? I want to be quite candid and to say that up to now it has not yet been defined. All we are told, after repeated conversations between one of the Clerks and the Chair. [HON.—MEMBERS:"Oh."]Yes, indeed—

The Chairman: Any Ruling I give is my entire responsibility. The Clerk of the Table must not be criticised. If any mistake has been made it is I who has made it.

Mr. Jones: I withdraw my reference to the Clerk of the Table. My only meaning was that you do get additional guidance which I hoped would be helpful to me.

The Chairman: If I get guidance it is my responsibility whether I accept it or not, and if I accept it, it is my responsibility.

Mr. Jones: With great respect, Sir Charles, would you accept the responsibility of defining in detail what we are entitled to discuss now? It seems to me


we shall not be allowed to discuss anything further owing to the lateness of the hour.

5.30 a.m.

The Chairman: I have already said what can be discussed, but I will repeat it again. The raising of the two sums of money can be discussed on this Resolution, but that is all that can be discussed on the Money Resolution.

Mr. Mikardo: Further to that point of order. Were you ruling, Sir Charles, that in quoting from the previous proceedings of the House or the Committee of the House on a debate on a Money Resolution one was only able to quote from previous debates on a Money Resolution, because that is what I understood?

The Chairman: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Foot) was explaining that he thought the money should be given in instalments, so to speak, in steps, and not in a lump sum. I pointed out that the money is asked for in the present Session.

Mr. E. Fletcher: May I take it that you did not intend to give any general ruling, Sir Charles, that it is automatically out of order on a Money Resolution to quote from an earlier speech merely because it was made in a Second Reading debate?

The Chairman: I gave two things; I gave a general Ruling and I said what could be discussed.

Mr. Fletcher: My question is—and it is a matter of importance and one which I am anxious to get quite clear—whether it is a Ruling of the Chair that it is necessarily out of order on a Money Resolution to quote from something which had previously been said in a Second Reading debate?

The Chairman: No, I would not give a general Ruling on that ground, but I could see from what was being said that it was out of order on the present occasion.

Mr. Mikardo: With the greatest respect, Sir Charles, when my hon. Friend was quoting from this passage he was specifically interrupted by you to say from what

he was quoting. He said he was quoting from the proceedings of the 1949 Bill. You then asked what stage, and he said the Second Reading. You thereupon said that in that case it was out of order.

The Chairman: I perhaps misled the Committee, but I did not understand how on a Money Resolution a suggestion of that kind was made. When I knew it was the Second Reading, it was clear to me.

Mr. Foot: It is quite clear from what you have said, Sir Charles, that I have failed to make myself clear, and that there has been a misunderstanding of what I attempted to say, although you said I had attempted to suggest that the money should be paid out in instalments and that it was on that account that you had called me to order and had ruled out of order the quotation which I made from the speech of the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton).
I apologise for not making myself clear. I had no intention of saying that the money should be paid out by instalments, nor did the right hon. Member for Aldershot. This Resolution asks for an increase of money to be made available to the Export Guarantees Department and it increases the amount of this Resolution by a much bigger sum than has been proposed in any previous Financial Resolution under these various Acts passed by the House.
I submit, therefore, that it would be perfectly in order for me to criticise the amount by which the figure is increased under the Financial Resolution and it is to that I am directly applying my argument. To reinforce my own argument I was using the statement made by the right hon. Member for Aldershot in the Second Reading debate. In his speech on that occasion he was directly reinforcing what I had said because he said on previous occasions that it was wrong in view of the amount by which the sum was to be increased in the Financial Resolution that it should be stepped up by great amounts, and that it was much better to have more frequent Bills and more frequent Financial Resolutions on which the matter could be discussed.
I think that in view of the contemptible way in which we were treated by the President of the Board of Trade it is
desirable that we should have more frequent occasions to discuss these matters, and indeed the whole controversy about this money resolution could have been avoided if the right hon. Gentleman had attempted to deal with the argument on the first occasion.

Mr. Bing: It is now about half-past five, we are engaged in a difficult and technical discussion of considerable general importance, and the last thing we want to do is to get into conflict with the Chair. Will you, Sir Charles, accept a Motion from me to report Progress and ask leave to sit again? I do this, because at this hour of the night it is difficult for hon. Members to apply their minds to the Financial Resolution and the rules governing its discussion, and it is desirable, on a non-contentious Measure like this, to examine the Financial Resolution and see whether it is possible and desirable to put down Amendments.
It would be better if hon. Gentlemen could refresh their minds and not become involved in disputes with the Chair, which grow in acrimony with the lateness of the hour. It is painful for us to find that we are involved with occupants of the Chair, and at this time of the night the more certainly one is in the wrong the more certain does one feel one is right. We have made great progress: we have taken this important Bill after 10 p.m. and having succeeded in that innovation I think the Government ought to agree to let hon. Members have some leeway to consider this Financial Resolution.
It may be that we are under a misapprehension. If anybody ought to know what is in order on a Financial Resolution it is my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), and he feels strongly on the matter. I ask the Government to give us an opportunity to examine the matter again. I feel it is unfair on the Chair to spring these points of order without any preparation and discussion. It is far better that we should follow our formal practice, where if we are thinking of raising such matters we communicate with the Chair informally and accept such guidance as we do receive, rather than become involved in wrangles of this sort.
There are a great many things my friends want to try and say on this Financial Resolution. I am not going to weary

the Committee by going through the sort of things they may wish to raise, but I do think that it would be consistent with the dignity of the House if my Motion were accepted. It is not good for this Committee to vote a sum of £300 million at this hour of the morning and with great respect, Sir Charles, the Committee should not be forced to do it.
It may well be that the points we desire to raise when we have examined the Financial Resolution could be properly raised on the Committee stage. It may be that some points such as those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) require an amendment to the Financial Resolution. It may be that the Financial Secretary, on thinking over the harsh words he spoke, may regret them and feel that the Amendments he proposed were desirable for the House to discuss. We could then have an agreed Amendment.
If we have to go forward now and recommit the Resolution it is not as if there is going to be a great and long discussion on it and I do appeal to the Patronage Secretary to agree to postpone the discussion, and not ask us to vote £300 million at this hour of the morning without anybody on this side or the other really knowing what they are entitled to say.
You, Sir Charles, can tell us when we are out of order, but what Members who have waited all night to speak want to know is whether they are in order or not. They have never found an opportunity. Will the Patronage Secretary give us the opportunity of inquiring why we should incur this application of £300 million. It is a reasonable request at this time of the night. We have facilitated the passage of the Agriculture Fertilisers Bill and it would go for harmony and agreement in getting these Measures through the House if the Patronage Secretary would agree to give way.
I ask him to respond to this appeal to report Progress not only on these narrow grounds, but on the more general one that Parliament does not work unless there is a certain amount of agreement between either side. If the Patronage Secretary is prepared to give way we may save him days and days at a later stage—although I cannot make any promises for my hon. Friends.

The Chairman: I hope I understand the request of the hon. and learned Member. It is to report Progress. I appreciate his kindness, but I am having no difficulty at all. I fully understand the procedure and I refuse to accept such a Motion.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Do I understand, Sir Charles, that you refuse to accept such a Motion. Can I then make an appeal to the Leader of the House, as my hon. and learned Friend has been appealing to the Patronage Secretary?

The Chairman: I have just refused to accept a Motion to report Progress.

Mr. Hall: I am not trying to move the Motion.

The Chairman: For my guidance then, what is the right hon. Gentleman moving?

Mr. Hall: I am making an appeal, through the Chair, to the Leader of the House. If I am out of order, you, Sir Charles, will rule me out of order. I was wondering if, at this late hour, and when he sees the tired faces of his colleagues on the benches opposite, he will not think it common humanity for someone on this side to move that Progress be reported. I wonder if the Leader of the House will answer the appeal in order that we may adjourn the debate and carry on our discussion when we are less tired and can attend to what is being said.

The Chairman: Hon. Members must speak on the Resolution before the Committee. I cannot understand all this talk about tiredness.

5.45 a.m.

Mr. Hale: I am very glad to hear your view on this matter, Sir Charles, and that we can return to the points we desire to discuss. I venture to ask your assistance because I find myself in a different position from that of my hon. Friends who have been speaking up to now. I have listened to the debate with patience and I do not think I have made more than one intervention, and that was momentary. Certainly, it cannot be said that there has been any obstruction at all by anyone. We have helped the Patronage Secretary a good deal in many discussions, and have withdrawn many resolutions which could have been discussed.
I am in this difficulty. We have given the Export Guarantees Bill a Second Reading so that we have agreed to the principle, but that does not mean that we have accepted all the details. In Committee, any Amendments can be made which the Committee see fit to make. Now we come to the Financial Resolution, and following the archaic and almost immemorial procedure, once the Resolution has been passed we are committed to the principle of the maximum figures mentioned in it. No Amendment to the Bill in Committee or at a later stage can affect those figures. Once we pass the Financial Resolution we are bound by both these figures as a maximum.
In other words, if £150 million is voted for special cases under Section 2 of the Act of 1949 and £750 million is voted to Section 1, and if the situation alters and we find, as I personally think we shall, in the altered situation of today, that we need more money for special cases and not so much for Section 1, as I understand it no amount of discussion in Committee will permit us to amend the Resolution and make it possible for money allocated to one case to be applied to the other.
That seems to be a matter on which the Committee would wish the President of the Board of Trade to say a few words. [Interruption.] I am sure that he does not wish to be discourteous, and I think I am putting a point to which he would wish to reply. If he does not, I know of no procedure by which I can compel him to do so.
Here I genuinely seek your advice, Sir Charles, because the last thing I want to do is to find myself in conflict with your Ruling. We are asked to vote an additional £50 million for Clause 2, for what are called special cases, of which, so far, we have had only two examples—herrings for Poland and buses for Havana. No one has said how this works, what are the other cases to which the money has been allocated. I accept at once, Sir Charles, your Ruling that in a discussion on the Financial Resolution we cannot go in detail into the machinery of the management or into the details of special cases, or try to widen the ambit of the discussion, but surely we may go as wide as this: I can say to the President of the Board of Trade that I myself think


special cases may grow more numerous, with the question of the devaluation of the franc, which may be decided on Friday, as well as the fate of the French Government, and that we may see an altered situation.
I do not think the Committee has before it at the moment sufficient information to justify it in passing this £50 million. I am in this great difficulty. In my view a case has been made out and full information has been given to justify us—because we have been given all the figures, we have been given the details of the expectations, we have been given the margins, we have been given the carry-over—in passing paragraph (a) of the Financial Resolution.
I can scarcely recall any information which has been given to the Committee which would justify us in passing paragraph (b). I clearly understand that we are in a position we so often find ourselves in on these omnibus resolutions—and when I say "omnibus" I mean in toto and am not speaking in terms of Havana—we are in this position, that we have got to take it or leave it, and that we cannot amend the Resolution at this stage. We can, as I understand it, only pass the Resolution as it stands or reject it as it stands. We cannot amend it at this stage in any circumstances. It is exceedingly difficult in these circumstances to give full effect to all the points hon. Members wish to raise.
It would be a courtesy to the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman would get up to give us sufficient information upon which to pass an effective judgment about whether we should spend this £50 million or not. Here is the difficulty I face, and here, Sir Charles, I seek your guidance. As I understand your Ruling, it is that I cannot do any more than say that in my view we should not spend this £50 million. I am not trying to challenge your Ruling. Everyone of us realises that these are exceedingly difficult matters; very narrow matters. It is always exceedingly difficult within the ambit of a Financial Resolution to put with fairness and correctness the points one wants to put.
I want to put it to you, however, that it is in order to put to the Committee some reasons why this £50 million should not be voted at this time, and I would urge the President of the Board of Trade

to adjourn the debate and to withdraw this Resolution and recast it so that these two sums can be interchangeable as financial events occur. That is one thing he could do. The second is, he could give the Committee some information about the special cases, and how they are dealt with, to enable the Committee to come to a full and fair decision on this question of this large sum of money.
If I am in order, and if the President of the Board of Trade is willing to do so, I shall give way to him at this moment to enable him quite briefly to deal with the points that concern us. I gather, however, that he proposes to treat the Committee with the contempt with which he treated the House on Second Reading of the Bill. If that is to be the attitude of Her Majesty's Government, then when we come to the other stages of the Bill we shall take every opportunity open to us to probe these matters to obtain the information, and to see that the President does treat us with more courtesy in the future than he has done in the past.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think it is a little unfortunate, because we are all in favour of this Bill—

Mr. E. Partridge: The right hon. Gentleman shows it in an unusual way.

Mr. Hall: I think it is unfortunate that the President of the Board of Trade has treated the Committee in the way that he has. Here we are dealing with a sum of money equal to three-quarters of the food subsidies, and equal, too, to something like 1s. 0d. on the Income Tax. It is a considerable sum. Yet we have not heard a single speech from the other side of the Committee, including the Government Front Bench, on this Money Resolution. I can assure hon. Members who are new Members that if in the period 1945 to 1950 any Government spokesman had attempted to have ridden off in that way the present Minister of Health would have had a good deal to say about it.
I do think that, following the debate we had the other night, the treatment which President of the Board of Trade has given to the Committee is not in accord with the dignity of this Committee or of the party he is supposed to adorn. I know it is impossible to get


Ministers to rise, but I should like to share, in the strongest possible terms, in what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has said. We shall have to remember this on future occasions, unless, even now, at the eleventh hour, the right hon. Gentleman will do the decent thing and explain this Money Resolution to the Committee.

Mr. Jack Jones: Having received from you, Sir, some guidance as to what will be in order, the question before us is the raising of this enormous sum of money. I have spent 15 hours here, not with the object of interfering with the progress of this matter, or of making things more awkward for the Government than they are, but to find out what are the reasons for raising this money, and how it is to be allocated, so that I can pass the information on to the people I represent.
When I go back to my constituency, and the people who have worked there ask me what was debated for 15 hours, I will have to say, "I cannot tell you because the Government would not divulge it." That will not be very conducive to the effort that the Government are asking from them. This is a very important matter, and not one to be laughed at by people who do not understand the feelings of those they never mix with.
This £300 million has to be raised by those who do the work, and it is to be put into the coffers of the country for a purpose that we have been given no details about. We understand vaguely that it is for the purpose of continuing guarantees for certain credits because of certain additional costs, and so forth. I would add my plea in a very sincere way to that of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) to the Minister to get up now and tell us, briefly, what he intends to do with this money when he gets it, so that we can pass on the information to the people who have to damn well earn it.

Mr. Benn: With the help of your guidance and many Rulings, Sir Charles, I am able to put to the Committee the difficulty I am in in connection with this Resolution. On the Second Reading we discussed the principle of the Bill, and everybody welcomed it. We are now faced with the allocation of the money

the House has granted as between the raising of £250 million extra for general purposes on a commercial basis, and an addition of £50 million for special purposes. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) in suggesting that that is a wrong balance as between the two sections. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his statement on the general economic situation, set the country a stiff task of exporting to the dollar area, and said that we should have to reduce our deficit by £100 million a year. That is a terrible burden.

6.0 a.m.

Mr. Angus Maude: On a point of order. It would be convenient if we could be sure on this question of order. I understood we were not in order in discussing the allocation of the total sum between the two sections, but only an increase of a certain amount in one section and in the other. I did not understand that the hon. Gentleman was addressing himself to that point.

Mr. Benn: As I understood your Ruling, Sir Charles, on Second Reading we debated the general principle, and no question could be raised then of the allocation of resources that Parliament is to provide. The Money Resolution is our only opportunity to discuss the allocation as between the two purposes. One could express it by raising the issue of one of them, and I am now raising the question whether the sum of £250 million is not excessive. The general principle we accepted and the general total we are now considering. But in view of the fact that a special effort is required for this country's export programme, I think the amount given for ordinary commercial insurance is excessive.
That is a serious point we have tried to bring out continuously throughout the debate. The President of the Board of Trade who, through the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, complained of the treatment he had from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing), might take this opportunity to say something about the allocation of resources between these two sections.

Mr. Arthur Holt: I had not intended taking any part in this debate, because I find my views diametrically opposed to nearly all the views


expressed on both sides. But, having heard my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), I feel that there is someone with whom I have something in common—possibly because he at one time represented that constituency I now have the honour to represent.
It is really surprising that the Government, who I had thought were interested in developing private enterprise in risks, should now decide to increase the amount of Government export credit when many of them are risks that should be taken by private enterprise. It is one thing for the Government to give a guarantee where they want exports to go in an uneconomic direction, but not where the risk should be taken by private enterprise.

Mr. Bing: I want to put one final plea to the President of the Board of Trade. We have all said rather hard things about one another, but I hope he will accept this in the friendly spirit in which it is meant. Surely it is possible for him to see that there ought to be on the Committee stage some possible discussion about the reallocation of this total sum between these two sections. That is quite a reasonable—

The Chairman: That is for the Committee stage, not now.

Mr. Bing: With respect, perhaps I am mistaken but I understood that we should be bound on the Committee stage and should not be able to suggest, for example, that the sum of money which should be allocated under Section 2 could ever exceed £50 million, and we could not attempt to effect any real reorganisation. If I am mistaken and it is possible to put down an Amendment to that effect, then I immediately give way, because that is the point I am trying to make.
The Committee would find it desirable —because in view of the conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite there may be a protracted Committee stage of this Measure and it might be convenient and prevent acrimony and ill-feeling—if we were in a position to discuss whether or not there should be a far greater allocation under Section 2. After all, the greater the risk, the less opportunity there is for commercial insurance, and the greater need there is for the exceptional type of risk taken by agreement with the Treasury.
It is a depressing work making this appeal from this side of the Committee. I have tried not to say anything forcefully or rudely. [An HON. MEMBER: "You did not succeed."] Hon. Gentleman opposite should have been in the debate and then they would have joined with me in pressing their hon. Friends. It is no advantage to the party opposite to enact legislation or a Money Resolution which does not conform to their purpose. They should study the Second Reading debate and on that basis see whether the Money Resolution is a fit instrument for carrying out the type of reforms that were suggested by many hon. Members during the discussion.
Finally, on a point of principle, it is desirable I should have thought that when the House votes £300 million we should not do it without a single word from the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: I must ask the Financial Secretary to give us an answer. Under your strict guidance, Sir Charles, we have had a discussion for over an hour which indicates that many valid questions have been put. None has been answered. At least we are entitled to have from the Front Bench opposite if not answers to the questions, at least some indication of why they want this money.

Mr. George Brown: They want a Reichstag.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the amount of the liabilities which may be undertaken by the Board of Trade in respect of guarantees under sections one and two of the Export Guarantees Act, 1949, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(a) raising to seven hundred and fifty million pounds the limit of five hundred million pounds imposed by subsection (4) of section one of the said Act of 1949 in respect of guarantees under that section;
(b) raising to one hundred and fifty million pounds the limit of one hundred million pounds imposed by subsection (2) of section two of the said Act of 1949 in respect of guarantees under that section;

in the sums which, under section three or section four of the said Act of 1949 are to be or may be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, charged on or issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing or paid into the Exchequer."—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Resolution to be reported this day

TRAFFIC CONGESTION, LONDON

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Conant.]

6.7 a.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: At this very early hour and after this long Sitting, I am sorry to have to ask a few hon. Members to sit here half an hour longer, but I feel that, having been fortunate in the ballot for the Adjournment, it is better to keep to arrangements that have already been made. I understand that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is also desirous of doing the same thing.
The subject I want to discuss this morning is London traffic congestion. It so happens that I have chosen possibly the one time during the day when there is no traffic congestion, except possibly of hon. Members going home at this moment. It is a subject which I know has been discussed many times before in this House. The last time was last May when my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) raised it. However, it is one which has never yet been resolved and it seems to me that it will take a very long time before we find a solution.
Yet last year the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, of which I am one of the representatives for the London County Council, produced an excellent report. I can say that because I had nothing to do with the drafting of it. The report contained a number of recommendations which would go a long way towards solving the problem. I know that at this stage in our affairs, with our national finances severely depleted, it is not possible to hope that many of those recommendations can be carried out. However, there are a number which do not involve much in the way of cost and which would solve part of the problem.
One deals with the question of parking. It stands out a mile from this report that one of the main causes of congestion in the central London area today is the number of cars parked in the streets because there is nowhere else to park them. If anybody drives through that excellent series of one-way streets in the Piccadilly area which has now been

in operation for two or three years—particularly Dover Street and Albemarle Street, he will see plenty of evidence of parked cars causing traffic congestion.
That brings me to the first point I want to make on recommendation No. 18 in the report. It says that it would be undesirable to make any substantial addition to the number of no-waiting streets in inner London until adequate off-street parking facilities have been provided. What I should like to suggest is certainly that that recommendation should be endorsed and that there should be no more no-waiting streets, but that the ones already existing should be abolished in favour of unilateral waiting regulations. Driving down these streets, as I do nearly every day, it seems clear that cars parked on both sides of the street at all hours of the day, including the period no-waiting regulations are in force, just as much as when they are not, ought to be parked on one side, leaving room for two lines of traffic, instead of being parked on both sides, leaving room for only one line of traffic.
The first remedy I suggest, therefore, is that where we have no-waiting regulations they should be abolished because they are a farce and because nobody takes any notice of them. They are supposed to be in existence from 11 a.m. to 6.30 p.m., but if one goes through these streets at 9 a.m. or between 11 a.m. and 6.30 p.m., one will find them obstructed on both sides.
On the other hand, I am convinced that unilateral waiting regulations could be enforced. In any case, no-waiting regulations are not 100 per cent. foolproof because there is an exception for delivery vans, which can wait there as long as it takes them to deliver or pick up goods. It only needs one vehicle in a street to cause an obstruction. One delivery vehicle, going about its proper business, can cause just as much obstruction as if the whole of that side of the street had vehicles waiting on it.
I am certain that unilateral waiting regulations could be easily enforced. They are in force on the Continent. Anybody who knows Paris well will know the Rue St. Honoré, which is a one-way street with unilateral waiting regulations. One can go there any time during the day and find one side fully occupied with cars and the other side completely bare of anything,


even a bicycle. I am certain that it would be possible to enforce regulations of that kind here, without putting any burden on the police whatever, with the same kind of sign-boards as were put up during the Festival of Britain in places like Northumberland Avenue and the streets near the Festival site where the police were determined that cars should not be parked. These signs were respected. That would be a better way of regulating parking without restricting the number of cars which could be parked. That is the way which would help to solve the problem.
That brings me the main recommendation about car parking. It is that, at the earliest possible moment, a sum of money amounting to about £5 million should be spent on building garages or car-parks in the centre areas, with many of the them underneath the squares in order to take off the streets that large number of cars, totalling about 5,000—that was the number estimated in a survey made two or three years ago—which are now cluttering up the streets.
I know that we cannot expect a sum of money of that kind to be spent on this problem at present, but I hope that, as soon as the financial situation permits, that recommendation will be put into force. I believe that if one can take many of these cars off the streets, one will solve a great deal of the congestion.
I pass from that to the question of one-way streets, and here I feel that London is rather behind many other cities, particularly cities abroad, in its traffic regulations. If one goes to Paris or Madrid, or one of the Swiss cities, one will rarely or never find in the central area so narrow a street as Jermyn Street with two-way traffic. That is a street which suffers from "No waiting" regulations which are not carried out. One has streams of traffic trying to go in opposite directions, with traffic parked on either side as well. One way of coping with the problem would be to make the street a one-way street from West to East.
There are many other streets and squares, not all congested, but which, nevertheless, would benefit from a one-way stream of traffic. St. James's Square comes to mind. There are cars parked in the centre of that square and even on the sides and sometimes one's view is obstructed. There are many other

squares, for example, in the Paddington area, where, although actually there is no congestion at the moment, one-way traffic would make driving a little safer.
There is also the problem of Park Lane and the East Carriage Drive of Hyde Park. I know that it may be revolutionary to suggest as a permanent feature that commercial vehicles and buses should be allowed to travel along the East Carriage Drive, but I think that needs considering. At the moment there is appalling congestion in Park Lane, and, particularly during the rush hour, near the exit from Hyde Park to Hyde Park Corner.
I hope this report will never he pigeon-holed. I am sure it will not be pigeon-holed by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. I hope, too, that, metaphorically speaking, the report will not go into the Department's "pending" tray. I hope it will be kept in the "in" tray so that when the time comes everyone will remember that here is an excellent report with practical, far-reaching recommendations waiting to be adopted as soon as the situation warrants.

6.19 a.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I should like to endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) has said about car parks, because on another occasion, in 1938, I put forward a scheme for building deep car parks under all London squares. In Berkeley Square alone a deep park could accommodate 900 cars as opposed to 60 cars round the periphery.
The report to which my hon. Friend has referred mentions a deep car park in San Francisco, which I have visited. There is no loss of amenity there. A very nice garden has been built on top of their very efficient deep car park. Could not such a park be considered here as a private enterprise measure? I understand that the car park in San Francisco more than pays for itself. If such a car park could be built under part of a London park as a commercial enterprise, it would more than pay its way.
We on the Westminster City Council have found in the past that it is no good seeking further places for car parks in London squares. The people living in


the squares find them a nuisance. We have almost reached saturation point at this stage, and we must find some bold and larger remedy to cope with it. There is also the fact, which I mentioned in 1938, that these deep car parks would make good underground shelters in case of an emergency, and that is no less true today. I hope that with those few remarks the Parliamentary Secretary can consider the advisability of building such car parks as a commercial undertaking.

6.21 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) need make no apology for raising this matter at this late hour, or rather at this early hour, of the morning. We all know the difficulties and delays which often occur in drawing the lucky number for these Adjournments, and nobody could blame him for not wishing to lose his opportunity of raising what is a topic of importance. The traffic question in London is, of course, not a new one.
If I may claim a little hereditary pride in the matter, my father was in the 1880's one of the pioneers of the London underground electric railways. They were scoffed at then as a wild-cat scheme, but have made no small contribution to solving the traffic problem during this century. However, the problem has grown in difficulty with the growth of traffic, and the basic problem at the moment, I think, as my hon. Friend will agree, is that the vast bulk of our London streets were built not for mechanical, but for horse-drawn vehicles, and that there have been few major improvements carried out since.
Of the various committees which have given attention to the problem, one of the most valuable contributions is the most recent, made by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee of which the hon. Gentleman is a distinguished member, which reported fully to the previous Minister. The report was published in January, 1951, and the Committee's recommendations were largely accepted in principle by the right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes), the then Minister of Transport, who made a statement in this House on 3rd April, 1951.
If I may take the hon. Gentleman's points in detail, first as regards unilateral waiting, he knows, I think, as probably does his hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) that a comprehensive system of no waiting was introduced in the centre of London on the advice of the Traffic Advisory Committee at the end of 1948. This gave marked relief, both to congestion and accidents, but, with the subsequent growth of traffic, it is now being seriously strained at many points. It is still working fairly well on main traffic routes, but the need for giving exemption to loading and unloading of commercial vehicles means that the full benefit cannot be derived from the scheme in the less important traffic routes.
The London Traffic Advisory Committee have recently recommended to my hon. Friend the Minister that there should be a comprehensive system of unilateral waiting introduced into London, particularly in the central area near Piccadilly of which my hon. Friend spoke. One important feature of the Committee's recommendation is that, to enable the unilateral system to work properly, there should be no loading or unloading on the non-permitted side of the street while unilateral waiting is in force, namely, from 11.30 a.m. to 6.30 p.m.
This is a new principle in central London, and the advertisement of the proposals had led to some strong objections from the commercial vehicle interests. The delay in giving effect to the Committee's recommendation has been largely due to difficulty over this point. The matter is now before the Minister and should the scheme be introduced it would be on an experimental basis as recommended by the Committee. When I come to more one-way streets, or perhaps a different way of putting it would be the Antrobus plan—from the name of a London taxi-driver who designed it—these should be tried over a section of Central London.
I think the House would agree that the one-way street is a useful expedient and in narrow thoroughfares assists greatly the flow of traffic. A number of streets in central London have been made one-way and additions are being made every year. I must, however, stress that the system involves certain disadvantages. It is more difficult for pedestrians to cross


because traffic is speeded up and confusion and danger are also likely to result when traffic approaches from what is normally the "wrong" direction. Traders complain of a reduction of business, and extensive one-way schemes cause confusion and delay to drivers.
The London Traffic Committee considered the plan in 1947, and, having heard the views of the Divisional Road Engineer and the police, who went into the scheme in great detail, came to the conclusion that it could not be adopted for reasons I will mention. It would be unwise to introduce a complete scheme of this kind in one simultaneous operation, and that was the opinion expressed by those who examined it at that time. Some important roundabouts would require alteration and extensive changes would have to be made to the traffic signal installations.
All this work would be useless if the scheme failed. The long one-way workings would involve vehicles, especially buses, in considerably increased mileage. The signposting of the area would be difficult, while confusion and danger might be caused to pedestrians. Some streets and junctions could not cope with the volume of traffic which would use them. The Ministry's policy is to introduce one-way working step by step and not in one vast sweep. There are two urgent schemes contemplated as soon as finance is available.
First, Hyde Park Corner. This is one of the improvements recommended in the London Traffic Advisory Committee's report of a year ago. But the scheme is a good deal older than that. It is part of a comprehensive improvement of the route from Hyde Park Corner to Marble Arch which would throw into the highway the east carriage drive of Hyde Park and provides new and larger roundabouts at each end. The cost of the scheme would be about £1,250,000. It has a high priority as a long-term proposal, and this will be one of the first to be undertaken as soon as it is possible to proceed with major road improvement in London because no rebuilding of houses is involved.
This scheme has been agreed between the London County Council who would be the promoters of it, the Westminster City Council and the Ministry of Transport. Minor criticisms of the lay-out have been made. In any major alteration

of traffic movements minor difficulties must be expected, and adjustments to meet them can always be considered. Hyde Park Corner is Priority No. 1, Priority No. 2, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives will be glad to hear, is that of car parks. One of the most important parts of the report by the Traffic Advisory Committee dealt with car parking which is one of the most serious causes of congestion in inner London.
The Committee's recommendations on car parking are at present being given the most careful and detailed review by the working party set up by the hon. Member for East Ham, South, in April, 1951, when he was Minister, under the chairmanship of Mr. A. Samuels, Chairman of the Main Traffic Advisory Committee. I do not know whether they are examining the proposal that there should be car parks provided by private enterprise, but at least the hon. Member now knows to what quarter he should take the proposal because I am quite sure theywill be pleased to look at it. The working party contains representatives of all the principal interests and the Minister hopes to receive its report next month or in May. Until this has been received and considered there is nothing definite which can be said.
I wish now to say something about another matter, as we have nearly seven minutes left. My hon. Friend did not refer to it, but it has had a certain amount of publicity—that is why I take this opportunity of dealing with it. There has been some severe criticism in the Press on police action in prosecuting members of the public for parking in Great Queen Street. We understand from the police that they are particularly lenient on parking in this street except in one or two areas where there are bottlenecks where it is essential that the street should be kept free if traffic in the area is not to be very grossly impeded.
The street is admittedly a difficult one and the police proposed, through the London and Home Counties Traffic Committee, that part of it should be devoted to unilateral parking. This suggestion, if accepted, may clear up the difficulty experienced in the street in daytime, would prevent waiting, and, at the same time, keep the bottlenecks free. On advertising that proposal there has been


no objection to it, but, of course, nothing will prevent proceedings for obstruction being taken against motorists who cause it by parking in awkward places whether subject to no waiting, unilateral waiting or otherwise.
I am glad to have taken this opportunity of dealing with this complaint. As my hon. Friend pointed out in his final remarks, whatever the normal congestion caused in the capital by traffic, the streets at this moment are clear. Hon. Members will be anxious to take advantage of that fact when the cry "Who goes home" is

heard. There will be ready response and no loitering on the part of hon. Members. I end as I began. This is an old problem, not capable of sudden solution, but I hope I have satisfied my hon. Friend that long-term plans exist. Finally, may I take this opportunity of thanking him for his valuable work on the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee?

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes to Seven o'Clock a.m.